State of Vermont v. Michael Williams
CASE NO. 25-AP-422
SUPREME COURT OF VERMONT
JANUARY TERM, 2026
2025 VT 3
Trial Judge: Heather J. Gray
APPEALED FROM: Superior Court, Caledonia Unit, Criminal Division; CASE NO. 25-CR-08766
ENTRY ORDER
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
¶ 1. Defendant appeals a trial court‘s decision to hold him without bail. Although the trial court‘s initial decision stated that the weight of the evidence against defendant was not great, while this appeal was pending, the trial court corrected one word of its decision. The court deleted the word “not” to clarify that it had concluded that the weight of the evidence was great. Defendant argues that the correction was impermissible because the change was substantive and an appeal was pending before this Court. In the alternative, defendant argues that the weight of the evidence is not great. We conclude that the trial court permissibly corrected its order and that there was substantial, admissible evidence for a reasonable jury to find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we affirm.
¶ 2. The law underlying a hold-without bail is well established. Both the Vermont Constitution and related statutes protect a defendant‘s general right to pretrial release. See
¶ 4. Defendant was charged with second-degree murder in violation of
¶ 5. In its decision holding defendant without bail, the trial court provided the legal standards set forth above. After reciting the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the decision read “[t]he State has not met its burden of establishing that [defendant‘s] guilt on the pending second-degree murder charge is great.” (Emphasis added). The decision explained that upon a finding that the evidence of guilt is great, a presumption against release arises. State v. Kirkland, 2022 VT 38, ¶ 9, 217 Vt. 653, 283 A.3d 974 (providing “a presumption against release arises” where person is “charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment” and “the evidence of guilt is great” (quotations omitted)). The court described that it had examined the factors in
¶ 6. Defendant appealed the hold-without-bail order to this Court. He argued that the trial court erred when it held defendant without bail under
¶ 7. The next day, the trial court issued a corrected decision indicating there was an error in the hold-without-bail order. The court struck the word “not” from one line of the order, so the decision read: “The State has met its burden of establishing that [defendant‘s] guilt on the pending second-degree murder charge is great.”
¶ 8. The State responded by filing a statement with this Court that it would not withdraw its motion to hold defendant without bail. The Court accepted additional briefing and held oral argument.
¶ 10. We begin with addressing the corrected order. The parties dispute the applicability of
¶ 11. According to defendant,
¶ 12. We recently expounded on the difference between a clerical mistake and an error that could not be corrected under
¶ 13. To determine the court‘s intent, we look to the text of both the trial court‘s corrected and original decisions. See id. ¶ 18 (describing focus of analysis is “what the court originally intended to do“). The corrected order reads:
The court recognizes there was an error in the court‘s December 1, 2025 Decision and Order on the State‘s Motion to Hold Defendant without Bail.
The first paragraph on page 7 of the December 1st Order should read: The State has met its burden of establishing that [defendant‘s] guilt on the pending second-degree murder charge is great.
The trial court appended a footnote to the corrected decision, explaining that the State could rely on exclusively circumstantial evidence to meet its burden of proof. The footnote also appeared in the original decision.
¶ 14. The court‘s original decision demonstrates that removing the word “not” from the decision was merely a correction of a clerical mistake. As indicated above, although the sentence originally included “not,” the legal reasoning indicated that the court had found the evidence of guilt great. For example, directly following the statement that the weight of the evidence was “not great” the court appended a footnote explaining that the State‘s case was permissibly based on circumstantial evidence. See State v. Godfrey, 2010 VT 29, ¶ 18, 187 Vt. 495, 996 A.2d 237 (“The State is allowed to rely exclusively on circumstantial evidence in proving its case.“). Notably, the court also used this identical footnote in its corrected decision to support its conclusion that the evidence of guilt was great.
¶ 15. Moreover, the decision recited the correct legal standards involved and analyzed the factors for release as if the evidence of guilt was great. It indicated that it was shifting the burden to defendant to “demonstrate that there are conditions of release that can be imposed to protect the public and mitigate risk of flight.” See Sartwell, 2025 VT 13, ¶ 4 (describing if State establishes both requirements listed in
¶ 16. In sum, the court‘s correction—removing the word “not” from its decision—makes the original decision internally cohesive and consistent. See State v. Greene, 172 Vt. 610, 611, 782 A.2d 1163, 1165 (2001) (mem.) (“The fact that the substance of the court‘s order followed boilerplate language that was inconsistent, as well as at odds with defendant‘s plea agreement, can
¶ 17. We are not persuaded by defendant‘s assertion that the error cannot be a clerical error because “it was not a mere administrative correction of a substantively unimportant point.” Defendant asserts that “the court changed the most significant finding in its order—that the weight of the evidence was not great, to a finding that the weight was great” and argues that “[t]here is little that could be more substantive.” (Emphasis in original).
¶ 18. This Court is aware of the significant impact and shift in expected outcome that this clerical error has had on the parties in this case. However, “[t]he magnitude of the correction‘s impact on the parties does not determine the availability of relief.” Warner, 2025 VT 70, ¶ 17. “[W]here the record makes it clear that an issue was actually litigated and decided but was incorrectly recorded, the trial court can correct the judgment . . . even if doing so materially changes the parties’ positions and leaves one party to the judgment in a less advantageous position.” Id. ¶ 18 (quotations omitted). Here, as explained above, the conclusion was incorrectly recorded.
¶ 19. Because this error was clerical,
¶ 20. At the time the trial court corrected its decision, this Court had placed defendant‘s bail appeal on hold with leave for the State to withdraw its request to hold defendant without bail. This Court had therefore transferred at least some of its jurisdiction over the bail matter back to the trial court. While under the circumstances, requesting leave to amend would have been the better practice, we need not decide whether this situation meant the appeal was no longer “pending” for purposes of
¶ 21. Defendant next argues that the weight of the evidence was not great. “Acknowledging that the threshold for great evidence of guilt lies between ‘probable cause’ and ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ this Court has adopted the
¶ 23. At this point in the night, defendant‘s explanation of the events starkly diverges from other evidence. According to defendant in his first interview with a detective, the victim gave defendant all of her personal effects—phone, wallet, and car keys—and immediately left the house again. Defendant first explained that the victim walked to a car waiting for her on the street. Available surveillance video footage covering the street does not support this account.3 Later, defendant explained that he had been mistaken and that the victim left on foot. The video footage also does not show her leaving on foot.
¶ 24. When confronted with the inconsistency between his stories and the video footage, defendant asserted, “I didn‘t put her in [her car]. I didn‘t take her anywhere in [her car].” Video footage shows the victim‘s vehicle leaving the house forty minutes after she had arrived at home. According to defendant, after the victim left the home, he started to worry and decided to take her car out to go look for her. However, defendant once again inconsistently explained the timing of this trip. According to defendant, while looking for the victim, he drove past the pull-off area where the victim‘s body was later discovered.
¶ 25. When interviewing defendant on the day the victim‘s body was found, a detective observed a red mark on defendant‘s arm and that defendant‘s dominant hand appeared swollen. Defendant offered two explanations for the swelling. According to defendant, he broke his hand twenty years prior and that it swelled due to his medication. Defendant also explained that he had been scratched by his cat recently and, alternatively, that he had sustained some scratches while breaking apart some shutters.
¶ 26. Finally, according to the coroner‘s report, the victim was strangled to death and suffered blunt trauma to her head.
¶ 27. As we have frequently explained, “[t]his Court has upheld numerous convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence.” Theriault, 2014 VT 119, ¶ 3. “When reviewing a case based largely on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be considered together, not separately.” State v. Baird, 2006 VT 86, ¶ 13, 180 Vt. 243, 908 A.2d 475 (quotation omitted) (reviewing evidence for purpose of reviewing motion for acquittal but using identical standard required in instant case, namely that Court “will review the evidence presented by the State viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution and excluding any modifying evidence,
¶ 28. In the light most favorable to the State and considering the evidence in its entirety, the State met its burden that the evidence of guilt is great. As defendant concedes, the evidence presented by the State demonstrates a clear motive and opportunity. Defendant and the victim were in the process of ending a long relationship. The victim had recently become involved with another man, and defendant was with the victim in the hours directly before her death. Based on the video footage of the surrounding area, a jury could also reach the conclusion that the only way the victim could have left the house that night was in the car, which defendant affirmatively indicated he drove past the pull-off area where the victim‘s body was found. Furthermore, a jury could reasonably conclude that the injuries observed on defendant align with a struggle consistent with the way in which the victim was killed. Together this constitutes substantial evidence of guilt which can fairly and reasonably convince a factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty. See Theriault, 2014 VT 119, ¶ 2 (outlining requirements to determine evidence of guilt is great).
¶ 29. Finally, because defendant does not challenge the court‘s
Affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice
Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice
Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice