13 Vt. Stat. Ann. § 7554

Section 7554(a)(4) requires a bail bond with sufficient solvent sureties or cash bail in its place; an order requiring cash bail alone is improper.

State v. Webb · filed 1974-05-17(a)(4)

In reviewing the order of the District Court continuing the conditions of release at $1,000.00 cash bail, there appears an inconsistency with 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(4) which “require [s] the execution of a bail bond with sufficient solvent sureties, or the deposit of cash bail in lieu thereof . . . .” ... Such error alone requires remand of the cause in order that proper conditions of release be imposed in accordance with the statute.

Section 7554(a) does not authorize forfeiture of cash bail for breach of a release condition unrelated to appearing in court.

State v. Cardinal · filed 1986-11-26(a)

There was no allegation that the defendant had failed to appear before the court as required by the original bail order. Under these circumstances, we hold that the trial court could not order forfeiture of defendant’s previously posted cash bail.

Section 7554(a)(4) gives the defendant the choice between a bail bond with sufficient solvent sureties and a cash deposit, subject to the court's determination of the sureties' sufficiency.

State v. Roessell · filed 1974-11-07(a)(4)

We have recently held and stili hold that the option of “a bail bond with sufficient solvent sureties, or the deposit of cash in lieu thereof”, 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a) (4), is an option belonging to the defendant, and the court setting bail may not make that choice except as with regard to the sufficiency of the sureties.

Section 7554(a)(1)(F) is unconstitutional to the extent it permits cash-only bail.

State v. Hance · filed 2006-09-08(a)(1)(F)

To the extent 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(1)(F) permits imposition of a cash-only bond, it is unconstitutional.

Section 7554 permits monetary bail to secure a defendant’s appearance, but not to protect the public.

State v. Thomes · filed 2014-09-26(a)(1),(2)

The applicable statute accordingly does not authorize the imposition of a bail condition in the name of public protection. See 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(1),(2) (bail listed as a condition available to secure appearance, but not as a measure available to protect the public).

Section 7554(a)(1) permits substantial cash bail to secure a defendant’s appearance when the record supports the amount as the least restrictive effective condition.

State v. Morris · filed 2015-01-02(a)(1)

At some point a court’s bail requirement may be so out of synch with a defendant’s conceivable ability to meet bail that it cannot be fairly considered to be the least restrictive means of securing a defendant’s appearance, but on this record the trial court did not exceed its discretion.

Section 7554 does not require particularized findings about a defendant’s ability to pay bail; the court must evaluate the relevant factors together to find the least restrictive means of ensuring appearance.

State v. Fidler · filed 2017-01-03

Nothing in § 7554 suggests that a trial court must make particularized findings regarding a defendant’s ability to pay; rather, the various factors must be evaluated as a whole to ensure the least restrictive means of ensuring a defendant’s appearance in court.

Section 7554 requires courts to consider a defendant’s financial resources but permits bail the defendant cannot pay if that amount is the least restrictive way to assure appearance.

State v. Pratt · filed 2017-03-06(b)

As a consequence, § 7554 allows a court to set bail at a level that a particular defendant may not be able to meet if the court concludes that bail at that level is the least restrictive way to assure that defendant’s appearance.

Section 7554(a)(1) requires findings supporting a surety bond when less restrictive appearance bonds could reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance.

State v. James Parker, Jr. · filed 2017-03-20(a)(1)

Because the bail statute “sets forth a list of increasingly more restrictive conditions,” Duff, 151 Vt. at 435, and because the unsecured and secured appearance bond conditions precede the surety bond condition in the statute, 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(1), the court should have made some minimal findings that would support the imposition of a surety bond rather than the other, less restrictive options contemplated in the statute.

Section 7554(b)(1) requires a court imposing conditions of release to consider the accused’s financial resources, including the ability to post bail.

State v. Kip Scanlon AKA Kivela · filed 2022-12-30(b)(1)

This assessment of the defendant’s “financial resources, including the accused’s ability to post bail” is also required in the enumerated list of considerations that a judicial officer “shall take into account” in imposing conditions of release under 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b)(1).

Before imposing cash bail, a court must consider the defendant’s financial means.

State v. Labrie · filed 2023-08-14(a)(1)(D)

The trial court was required to consider defendant’s financial means pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(1)(D) before imposing bail, and failed to do so here.

Section 7554(a)(1) permits cash bail only to address a risk of flight from prosecution; a risk of further criminal activity does not suffice.

State of Vermont v. Racicot · filed 2023-02-08(a)(1)

Section 7554(a)(1) of Title 13 allows for the imposition of cash bail only to “mitigate the risk of flight from prosecution.” ... However, traditional risk of flight from prosecution as defined in 13 V.S.A. § 7576(9) is the sole type of risk that the criminal division has statutory authority to consider when imposing cash bail; risk of recidivism is not interchangeable with risk of flight.

Section 7554(a)(1) permits cash bail only when the defendant poses a risk of flight from prosecution and other conditions cannot address that risk.

State v. Barrett · filed 2023-08-23(a)(1)

The court may impose cash bail only when the court determines that defendant poses a risk of flight from prosecution and that other conditions are insufficient to address that risk. ... Accordingly, I conclude that the trial court’s finding that defendant posed a risk of flight was not supported by record and therefore there was no basis to impose bail or surety.

Before imposing cash bail to address a risk of flight, the court must consider the statutory factors, including the defendant’s financial resources.

State v. Hoag · filed 2023-10-04(b)(1)

The trial court did not adequately consider whether cash bail or surety bond would reasonably mitigate the risk of flight from prosecution. 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(1). While the court noted defendant’s history of escapes, probation violations, and failures to appear, it did not consider the other statutory factors in § 7554(b)(1), including defendant’s financial resources.

Section 7554 requires bail to be the least restrictive condition necessary to ensure the defendant’s appearance, with the amount supported by the court’s findings.

State v. Benjamin · filed 2024-04-16(a)(1)

Because the trial court does not articulate its reasoning for increasing the amount of bail required for defendant’s release, from $130 to $5,000, the record necessarily cannot support that the figure was the least-restrictive condition available and “reasonably calculated to fulfill the purpose of giving adequate assurance that defendant” will appear.

Section 7554(b)(1) requires a court to consider a public-defender application offered to show an accused’s financial resources at a bail-review hearing when a party requests it and the other party does not object.

State v. Rougeau · filed 2019-03-22(b)(1)

We note that to “take [a public-defender application] into account” simply means that a court must consider the information in a public-defender application when requested to do so and when there is no objection by the opposing party.

Section 7554(a) requires the least restrictive conditions that reasonably assure a defendant’s appearance and permits cash bail when less restrictive conditions are inadequate.

State of Vermont v. Messier · filed 2013-05-31(a)

Our bail statute indicates that where the court is not satisfied that personal recognizance or an unsecured appearance bond are sufficient to ensure a defendant’s later appearance in court, it must impose the least restrictive condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure defendant’s appearance. See 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a). ... I find that the record reflects adequate support for the trial court’s conclusions and that the court’s decision to impose a cash bail to assure appearance is not unreasonable.

Section 7554(a) provides for release on personal recognizance unless the judicial officer determines that it will not reasonably assure appearance or will endanger the public; bail conditions must be supported by the record.

State v. Lake · filed 1974-09-11(a)

Not being an offense punishable by death, the defendant shall be released pending trial on his personal recognizance unless the judicial officer “determines in the exercise of his discretion that such a release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, or that the release of the person will constitute a danger to the public.” 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a). ... Although the defendant had a supply of marijuana on hand at his house from which he sold some to the two minors involved without regard to the consequences, the facts and circumstances evident from the record do not support the conditions of bail imposed by the court below.

Section 7554(a) requires evidence that the bail amount is necessary to prevent flight when less restrictive conditions may suffice.

State v. Duff · filed 1989-04-21(a)

In summary, we hold that the trial court’s bail decision cannot be justified under 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a) based on the lack of evidence before the court and the sparse findings. On remand, the State may choose to introduce evidence to show why this bail amount, and no less restrictive conditions or bail amount, is necessary to prevent flight.

Section 7554(a)(1) requires courts to use the least restrictive release conditions that reasonably assure a defendant’s appearance.

State v. Weller · filed 1989-06-16(a)(1)

As we recently discussed in State v. Duff, 151 Vt. 433, 435, 563 A.2d 258, 260 (1989), our bail statutes require the trial courts to use the least restrictive release conditions that will “reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required.” 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(1). The statute sets forth a list of increasingly restrictive conditions with the requirement that the court go only so far down the list as necessary to ensure appearance.

Section 7554 requires conditions of release to be the least restrictive combination necessary to reasonably protect the public.

State v. Eastman · filed 2011-07-28(a)(2)

The superior court’s decision was supported by the record and meets the statutory requirement that the combination of conditions be the least restrictive necessary to reasonably assure the protection of the public.

Section 7554(b) guides a court’s decision on conditional release through factors including the offense’s nature and circumstances, the defendant’s family ties and resources, and the defendant’s record of convictions.

State v. Putnam · filed 2008-04-10(b)

In exercising its discretion, the court was guided here by the factors in § 7554, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, defendant’s family ties, employment, financial resources, and record of convictions. ... The trial court’s ruling was within its discretion.

Section 7554(a)(1) lists factors courts consider when assessing a defendant’s risk of nonappearance in deciding whether to release the defendant on bail.

State v. Falzo · filed 2009-08-20(a)(1)

Section 7554 lists a number of factors to be considered in “determining whether the person presents a risk of nonappearance.” 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(1). Here, the trial judge considered several of these factors, including that defendant is facing “not only one but two life imprisonment charges,” as well as three other felony charges. ... For these reasons, we find that the district court acted within its discretion in denying bail.

Section 7554(a)(1)(B) permits appropriate restrictions on travel, association, or place of abode as conditions of release.

State v. Johnson · filed 2011-09-21(a)(1)(B)

Although, conditions #6 and #11 restrict her ability to travel, § 7554(a)(1)(B) contemplates such restrictions on travel, association, or place of abode where appropriate.

Section 7554 requires courts considering home detention for a bailable defendant to seek the least restrictive, reasonably effective way to assure appearance and protect the public.

State v. Dunn · filed 2014-05-05(a)

In assessing the propriety of a home detention order in a § 7554 case, the trial court is charged with considering a host of factors and finding the least restrictive, reasonably effective method of assuring the defendant’s appearance and protecting the public.

Section 7554(g) permits a court considering home detention for a defendant bailable under § 7554 to rely on information that does not conform to the rules of evidence.

State v. Lesage · filed 2021-04-07(g)

The fact that courts only consider home detention for defendants who are bailable under § 7554 suggests that under § 7554(g), the court need not conform to the rules of evidence in considering a motion for home detention. Given that both §§ 7554 and 7554b aim to impose the least restrictive set of conditions that ensure both the defendant’s appearance in court and protection of the public, it would be inconsistent to conclude that one proceeding must follow the rules of evidence while the other need not. Accordingly, the court did not clearly err by relying on the report that was not introduced into evidence. Nor did the court err by relying on the hearsay statements contained in attachments to the report, or the information and affidavit.

Section 7554(a)(1) permits bail and supervision by a responsible adult when those are the least restrictive conditions reasonably necessary to ensure the defendant’s appearance.

State v. Bailey · filed 2017-03-10(a)(1)

Second, the record does not show that the court abused its discretion in determining that the combination of bail with a “responsible adult” condition was the “least restrictive” set of conditions to “reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required.”

Section 7554 requires the court to assess flight risk and permits release without monetary bail when less restrictive conditions reasonably mitigate that risk.

State v. Lohr · filed 2020-06-05(a)(1)

Under this framework, if a defendant who has been held without bail pursuant to § 7553a does not present a risk of flight, or if bail is not among the least restrictive conditions required to reasonably mitigate the risk of flight, the court may essentially set bail at $0—or no bail at all.

Section 7554 requires the court to assess flight risk using the relevant factors and, if it finds a risk, impose only the least restrictive conditions reasonably necessary to mitigate it.

State v. Whidbee · filed 2022-12-02(a)(1)

Relying on evidence in the record, the trial court must weigh the relevant factors under § 7554(a)(1) to determine whether defendant poses a risk of flight from prosecution and make sufficient findings to support such determination. If the trial court determines that defendant does pose a risk of flight, then it must consider the factors under § 7554(a)(1) and (b) and only impose the least restrictive set of conditions reasonably necessary to mitigate that risk of flight.

Section 7554 requires findings that release conditions are necessary to mitigate a risk of flight or protect the public.

State v. Labor · filed 2023-09-26(a)(1), (2)

As explained above, conditions of release may be imposed where a defendant presents a risk of flight from prosecution or for protection of the public. 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(1), (2). ... Therefore, the conditions imposed lacked the requisite findings regarding whether they were necessary to mitigate the risk of flight or to protect the public.

Section 7554 allows additional or different conditions of release to reasonably assure a defendant’s attendance at further proceedings.

State v. Ranzona · filed 1979-08-30

The order revoking bail is reversed, and the cause remanded for a determination, following additional hearing, if the parties be so advised, of whether revocation can be supported on the ground that no less drastic means will reasonably assure the appellant’s attendance at further proceedings, State v. Mecier, 136 Vt. 336, 388 A.2d 435 (1978), and, if not, whether additional or different conditions of release should be imposed. 13 V.S.A. §§ 7554, 7556(b); State v. Pray, 133 Vt. 537, 346 A.2d 227 (1975).

Section 7554(d) allows a defendant to challenge conditions of release again after arraignment.

Scanlon v. State · filed 2026-02-05(d)

Most importantly, nearly every issue at the arraignment can be challenged again. This includes probable cause through a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 and conditions of release through 13 V.S.A. § 7554(d).

Section 7554(b) requires courts to consider the offense, evidence, and accused’s circumstances when setting release conditions; restrictive bail based on public danger requires adequate findings.

State v. Gregory · filed 1974-09-11(b)

We are not convinced that the circumstances of this case were so extraordinary and that the facts found justified the imposition of the $5,000.00 bail requirement. ... We find that the findings of the lower court are inadequate to support a denial of the defendant’s right to be released on his own recognizance, in the presence of non-monetary or supervisory conditions of release available for the protection of the public.

Section 7554 permits conditions of release to protect the public when the defendant presents a danger, but danger alone cannot justify denying bail entirely.

State v. Brown · filed 1978-11-16

Our cases hold only that bail may not be denied on the sole ground that defendant’s release would endanger the public. ... We hold that the imposition of the condition here in issue in connection with defendant’s release pending trial presents no error as there was no denial of bail.

Section 7554(a)(2)(C) does not authorize monetary conditions of release to protect the public.

State v. Wood · filed 1991-08-15(a)(2)(C)

The narrowed issue, then, is whether § 7554(a)(2)(C) (imposition of “any other condition found reasonably necessary to protect the public”) includes monetary conditions. We hold that it does not.

Section 7554(a)(2)(C) requires findings of extraordinary circumstances before a court imposes physically restrictive conditions to protect the community or an alleged victim.

State v. Sauve · filed 1993-01-29(a)(2)(C)

We agree that the denial of bail violated 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(2)(C) and do not, therefore, reach the constitutional issue. ... The court’s findings fall far short of supporting its conclusion that “extraordinary circumstances” required “physically restrictive conditions” to protect the community and the alleged victim.

Section 7554(a)(3) allows a court to restrict contact with a potential witness without necessarily imposing the least restrictive condition.

State v. Crowningshield · filed 2011-05-25(a)(3)

Under § 7554(a)(3), the court need not necessarily impose the “least restrictive” condition to prevent harassment of or contact with a potential witness.

Section 7554(a)(3) allows a no-contact release condition for a victim or potential witness without requiring the least restrictive condition.

State v. Rudolph Winston/State v. Cynthia Winston · filed 2011-12-23(a)(3)

Under § 7554(a)(3), there is no “least restrictive” condition requirement.

Section 7554(a)(3) permits a no-contact condition for a victim or potential witness without requiring the least restrictive condition.

State v. Cynthia Winston/State v. Rudolph Winston · filed 2011-12-23(a)(3)

Under § 7554(a)(3), there is no “least restrictive” condition requirement.

A physically restrictive condition of pretrial release may be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances.

State v. Theriault · filed 2014-05-29(a)(2)(D)

Given the legislature’s admonition found in 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(2) that a judicial officer should consider the least restrictive combination of conditions that will reasonably assure protection of the public, and that “a physically restrictive condition may only be imposed in extraordinary circumstances,” § 7554(a)(2)(D), I cannot find that the record below supports the twenty-four hour curfew imposed, even as amended.

Section 7554(a)(3) permits a no-contact condition for an alleged victim without the least-restrictive-condition or extraordinary-circumstances requirements of § 7554(a)(2).

State v. Cushing · filed 2015-08-25(a)(3)

Here, because § 7554(a)(3) expressly authorizes the court to impose a no-contact condition, defendant’s two arguments that the court improperly imposed the condition under § 7554(a)(2) are unavailing. Under § 7554(a)(3), the court is not bound to impose the “least restrictive” condition to prevent contact with a victim, nor must it find extraordinary circumstances to impose a condition restricting contact;2 it may simply order that no contact occur.

Section 7554(a)(3) permits a no-contact condition when the trial court exercises sound discretion based on the record and the restriction is reasonably necessary to protect a complaining witness or prevent witness tampering.

State v. George Woods, Jr. · filed 2016-12-01(a)(3)

Although the information in the record was sparse, no-contact conditions under 7554(a)(3) require only that a trial court exercise sound discretion, based on the information in the record.

Section 7554(a)(3) permits conditions protecting a victim or potential witness without requiring the least restrictive means or extraordinary circumstances for physical restrictions.

State v. Cook · filed 2016-04-08(a)(3)

§ 7554(a)(3) does not require the least restrictive means necessary to protect the public or extraordinary circumstances to impose physical restrictions.

Section 7554(a)(2)(D) permits a court to prohibit possession of deadly weapons as a condition of release when reasonably necessary to protect the public.

State v. Danforth II · filed 2022-12-30(a)(2)(D)

The court has broad discretion to impose conditions of release both to ensure appearance as well as protect the public. 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(2)(D) (allowing imposition of “any other condition found reasonably necessary to protect the public”). The condition is well supported by the record below, which alleges defendant’s constant threats toward the victim and use of a firearm to batter her.

Section 7554(a)(2) permits a court to impose the least restrictive condition that will reasonably protect the public when conditions addressing flight risk are insufficient.

State v. Farnsworth · filed 2023-11-03(a)(2)

We conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in finding that the responsible adult condition remained the least restrictive condition to reasonably mitigate the risk of flight and protect the public. The court determined that defendant was a risk of flight, that the conditions imposed under 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a)(1) were insufficient to reasonably ensure protection of the public, and that the responsible adult condition was the least restrictive condition that would reasonably ensure protection of the public.

Section 7554(b)(2) requires courts to consider and weigh the statutory factors when setting conditions to protect the public; the factors need not all favor a condition.

State v. Hanson · filed 2024-02-22(b)(2)

The court considered each of the statutory factors under § 7554(b)(2) and found that the nature and circumstances of the offense, as well as defendant’s character and mental condition, demonstrated that release without supervision would be insufficient to protect the public. While not all of the statutory factors weighed in favor of imposing these conditions, the court appropriately considered and weighed them all.

Section 7554 permits a responsible-adult supervision condition only when a possible person or organization has been identified and has agreed to supervise the defendant.

State v. Champagne · filed 2024-03-21(a)(1)(A), (a)(2)(A)

As to the responsible-adult condition, the language of the statute indicates that the Legislature intended the condition to be used when there is an identified possible person or organization available for placement and the person or organization has already consented to that supervision.

Section 7554 factors guide a court’s discretionary decision whether to release a defendant on conditions, even when § 7553 permits detention without bail.

State v. Turnbaugh · filed 2002-09-30

The trial court considered the factors set forth in 13 V.S.A. § 7554, including defendant’s family ties, employment, financial resources, character and mental condition, record of convictions and record of appearances in court. Although it considered defendant’s request to be committed to the custody of his parents with a 24-hour curfew, the court declined to release defendant on conditions, based on evidence of defendant’s inability to appropriately deal with issues surrounding his mental health and illegal drug use. We find no abuse of the court’s discretion.

Section 7554(b)’s release factors allow the nature and severity of the offense to outweigh factors favoring release pending appeal.

State v. Brillon · filed 2009-05-07(b)

Section 7554(b) provides a list of factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense, weight of the evidence against the defendant, family ties, employment, financial resources, character and mental condition, length of the defendant’s residence in the community, his record of convictions, and record of appearance at court proceedings. ... Defendant is not now entitled to bail as a matter of right, State v. Ryan, 134 Vt. 304, 305, 359 A.2d 657, 658 (1976), and the heavy weight of the conviction and severity of the offense are not necessarily trumped, as a matter of law, by the factors weighing in his favor.

Section 7554(b)'s bail factors apply when a court decides whether to release a probationer pending a violation hearing, though the weight of each factor may differ because the probationer has already been convicted.

State of Vermont v. Houle · filed 2013-09-26(b)

In making the discretionary assessment regarding whether to release a probationer pending the VOP hearing, a court is required to consider the factors listed in 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b). ... Therefore, while the statutory factors that a trial court must apply may be the same in both contexts, the starting point of the analysis—release as a starting point versus no right to release—as well as the evidence to be considered and the weight accorded to each factor may differ.

For probationers, courts must consider the § 7554(b) factors, but § 7554(a)’s presumption of release and least restrictive conditions requirement do not apply.

State v. Campbell · filed 2014-11-07(a), (b)

¶ 9. Both 28 V.S.A. §301(4) and Vermont Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(3)(A) direct our attention to 13 V.S.A. § 7554, and Rule 32.1(a)(3)(A) expressly requires courts to consider the § 7554(b) factors when determining conditions of release for probationers. While § 7554(b) references subsection (a), that subsection is inapplicable to probationers because it presumes release. Thus, § 7554(a)’s requirement that a defendant “shall ... be ordered released pending trial in accordance with this section” is inapplicable. Also inapplicable is the requirement of subsection (a)(1) that the court must impose “the least restrictive . . . conditions which will reasonably assure the appearance of the person.” All that is necessary is a consideration of the § 7554(b) factors.

Section 7554(b) requires a court setting release conditions to consider factors including the weight of the evidence and the defendant’s recent history of violence.

State v. Carroll Sparks, Jr. · filed 2015-04-22(b)

I therefore conclude that the court properly considered the factors under 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b) and that its decision to prohibit defendant from having contact with the victim is supported by the proceedings.

Section 7554 calls for appropriate conditions of release, with cash bail used to ensure a defendant’s return to court when there is a risk of flight.

State v. Lontine · filed 2016-02-18

This case is therefore controlled by § 7554, and the Court must consider the appropriate conditions under which to release defendant. ... The Court concludes that defendant does not present a risk of flight for which monetary bail needs to be set. He has deep roots in the Newport community: he was raised here and his parents and other family members live here. Accordingly, cash bail, whose purpose is to ensure a return to court, is not necessary.

Section 7554’s factors govern the conditions of release for probationers who have a statutory right to bail pending a violation hearing.

State v. Kane · filed 2016-11-22

Therefore, we conclude that defendants who fit the statutory criteria have a statutory right to bail or release and that the conditions of that release should be determined by a consideration of the factors in 13 V.S.A. § 7554.

Section 7554(b) sets out factors for assessing conditions of release, and courts have broad discretion in applying them.

State v. Rondeau · filed 2017-03-21(b)

This line of reasoning ignores the broad discretion granted to courts to assess the § 7554(b) factors.

Section 7554 entitles a defendant charged with a criminal offense to release on conditions unless the charge is punishable by life imprisonment or is a felony involving an act of violence.

State v. Brent Dean Booker, Jr. · filed 2020-07-24

A defendant charged with a criminal offense is entitled to release on conditions pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7554 unless one of two exceptions applies: (1) the offense charged is punishable by life imprisonment, id. § 7553, or (2) the offense charged is a felony that involves an act of violence, id. § 7553a.

Section 7554(b)'s release factors may be weighed against the conviction and likely sentence when reviewing postconviction bail.

State v. Sullivan · filed 2015-05-08(b)

Thus, the trial court did not withhold its discretion or exercise its discretion on clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds. Rather, it weighed all the evidence before it, including the § 7554(b) factors and the fact of conviction (and with it, defendant’s exposure to a potentially lengthy sentence).

When deciding whether to release a defendant under § 7553, a court need not consider every factor listed in § 7554(b).

State v. Ford · filed 2015-09-29(b)

We note that under § 7553 the presumption is against release and there is no requirement that a court consider all of the factors listed in § 7554 when exercising its discretion.

Section 7554(b) requires a court deciding whether to hold a probationer without bail to adequately consider its listed factors.

State v. Kane · filed 2016-03-17(b)

Although the court’s discretion to hold a defendant without bail under these circumstances is very broad, and the presumption is in favor of incarceration, not release, there still must be adequate consideration of the factors set forth in 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b).

Section 7554 factors must be considered when deciding whether to release a defendant before trial, even after the evidence of guilt is found great under § 7553.

State v. Travis C. Collins, Sr. · filed 2017-09-08

In this case, the trial court failed to consider the § 7554 factors. The court correctly held a hearing to determine whether the State had sufficient evidence to meet the § 7553 requirements, but did not consider whether any of the § 7554 factors weighed in favor of defendant’s pretrial release. A failure to engage in the analysis required to reach an informed decision is an abuse of discretion.

Section 7554(b) factors guide a court’s decision on discretionary release; the court need not expressly relate its assessment of those factors to flight risk and public safety.

State v. Boyer · filed 2021-03-15(b)

Here, with the § 7554(b) factors in mind, the court turned to the overarching question of whether any combination of conditions could assure public safety or mitigate the risk of flight to avoid prosecution. ... To the extent defendant also suggests that although the court set forth each of the applicable factors, it did not “consider or weigh” those factors to determine whether a hold-without-bail order was the least restrictive measure required to address risk of flight, we find this argument unavailing.

Section 7554(b) lists factors a court may consider when deciding whether to release a defendant held under § 7553, but the court need not recite every factor.

State v. Blodgett · filed 2021-06-11(b)

Although the court could have been more explicit in connecting its findings to the § 7554(b) factors, we have never required that the court recite each of those factors in the exercise of its broad discretion to release a defendant to whom no presumption in favor of release applies.

Section 7554(b) supplies the factors a court must consider when deciding whether to release a defendant pending sentencing.

State v. Earle · filed 2016-03-23(b)

So the legal framework is as follows: defendant is not entitled to bail in connection with the heroin possession charge and subsequent violation of probation charges; the trial court may release defendant pending sentencing in its discretion; and the factors to be considered by the trial court in exercising its discretion are set forth in 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b).

Section 7554(b) requires consideration of release factors when deciding whether to hold a probationer without bail, but the court need not explicitly state its analysis if the record provides an adequate factual basis.

State v. Kane · filed 2016-09-01(b)

Here, the court did not explicitly state its analysis of the § 7554(b) factors. However, the court was not required to do so. Rather, what matters is that it was presented with an adequate factual basis for determining that the defendant should be held without bail.

Section 7554(b) supplies the factors courts consider when deciding whether to release a probationer pending a violation hearing.

State v. Torres-Caraballo · filed 2022-11-16(b)

The only pertinent consideration in reviewing denial of bail for a VOP offense are the factors laid out in § 7554(b), none of which probationer raised at the bail hearing.

When deciding discretionary release for a probationer, a court need not make findings on every § 7554(b) factor.

State v. James Gibbons, Jr. · filed 2022-08-23(b)

Although the court did not make findings regarding the remaining § 7554(b) factors, this does not amount to an abuse of discretion.

Section 7554(b) treats the weight of the evidence as one of several factors in deciding whether to release a probationer on conditions.

State v. Corbin · filed 2022-11-23(b)

Additionally, the weight-of-the-evidence factor as provided in § 7554(b) is but one factor among many to determine whether a probationer should be released on conditions.

Section 7554 does not permit a judicial officer to deny bail entirely because a defendant’s release would endanger the public.

State v. Pray · filed 1975-10-07(a)

Thus, a reading of § 7554 that would allow denial of bail upon a finding of danger to the public is unconstitutional. We do not construe the statute in such an unconstitutional manner.

Section 7554(b) allows courts to consider its listed bail factors, but danger to the public cannot justify refusing bail entirely.

State v. Mecier · filed 1978-07-06(b)

State v. Pray, supra, amends those considerations on a constitutional ground and eliminates the anticipatory test of danger to the public as a justification for refusing bail. But the other factors of 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b) still remain.

Section 7554(a) remains valid after the constitutional bail amendment and must be considered when deciding bail eligibility for a person charged with a noncapital offense.

State v. Lambert · filed 1985-01-02(a)

Since the court, in denying the defendant bail, considered only the Constitutional Amendment, and failed to consider the applicable statutory provisions, the defendant is entitled to a new hearing on bail to determine her eligibility for bail under the terms of 13 V.S.A. § 7554.

Section 7554 governs release on bail with conditions for a person charged with lewd or lascivious conduct with a child because that offense does not qualify for detention without bail under § 7553a.

State v. Madigan · filed 2011-03-25

I conclude that § 7553a does not apply to § 2602 and the superior court correctly released defendant with a combination of conditions pursuant to § 7554.

Section 7554 applies to a defendant’s bail eligibility when the State has not moved to revoke bail and the trial court has only increased the bail amount.

State v. Goucher · filed 2014-06-04

Because the State did not move to revoke bail and the trial merely raised the amount of bail, however, I consider defendant to be bailable and evaluate his motion under § 7554.

Section 7554(a) does not require release on conditions for a defendant held without bail under § 7553.

State v. Sartwell · filed 2025-03-12(a)

The trial court was under no obligation here, where defendant was held without bail under § 7553, to release him upon conditions, including the execution of a secured appearance bond.

Section 7554 permits a court to release a defendant on conditions, including monetary bail, even when the requirements for detention under § 7553a are met, but that discretion is narrow.

State v. Hosten · filed 2026-01-30

However, even when elements have been met, the court has narrow but not nonexistent discretion to nonetheless release defendant on conditions, including monetary bail. ... The court declines to exercise its limited discretion.

Section 7554 requires a judicial determination of bail eligibility for a murder charge that does not carry the death sentence.

State v. Lapham · filed 1975-06-10

The crime charged is murder and the issue is the denial of bail. Since it is not a charge involving the death sentence (see 13 V.S.A. § 7554), it is not a capital crime, and there is a right to have the entitlement to bail judicially determined.

Section 7554(c) requires adequate notice and specific release conditions when a person’s liberty may be lost.

State v. Cyr · filed 1976-10-04(c)

It is clear from the findings that the lower court was disturbed about criminal activity by the defendant while he was on bail. Although this is legitimately a matter for concern, it cannot properly be reached by reference to “implied” release conditions. Due process standards, as incorporated in 13 V.S.A. § 7554(c), relating to loss of liberty require adequate notice and appropriate specificity.

Section 7554(d) requires the judicial officer to give written reasons for the conditions imposed.

State v. Touchette · filed 1976-11-23(d)

Cause remanded in order that the judicial officer shall set forth in writing the reasons for requiring the conditions imposed. 13 V.S.A. § 7554(d).

Section 7554(d) requires the judicial officer who imposed conditions of release to review them first.

State v. Murray · filed 1978-10-05(d)

That provision requires that conditions of release be reviewed, in the first instance, “by the judicial officer who imposed them” (Emphasis added.) 13 V.S.A. § 7554(d). Since the respondent failed to follow this procedure, the appeal must be dismissed.

Section 7554(d)(1) provides a hearing to review release conditions for a person detained because they cannot meet them, but does not require a full hearing when the conditions are first imposed.

State v. Madison · filed 1995-03-01(d)(1)

First, with respect to defendant’s § 7554 argument, nothing in that statute entitles defendants to a full hearing at the time conditions of release are first imposed; thus, for all practical purposes, defendants are entitled to only one full hearing to challenge conditions of release that have been previously set by a judicial officer.

Section 7554(a)(3) makes no-contact orders effective immediately, including during incarceration, but § 7554(c) requires the court to give the defendant fair notice of the conditions imposed.

State v. Tavis · filed 2009-06-12(a)(3), (c)

Section 7554(c) obligates the court to issue an appropriate order informing defendant of the conditions imposed. WTiile the statute clearly and unambiguously directs that a no-eontact order take effect immediately, regardless of whether the defendant is incarcerated or released, no one told this to defendant. This error subjected defendant to a conviction for violating an order which, by its own terms, did not prohibit his conduct. Such a result contravenes the letter and spirit of § 7554(c).

Section 7554(d)(2) requires a bail review hearing within five days of the original denial of bail when its procedure applies to a detained probationer through Criminal Rule 32.1.

State of Vermont v. Houle · filed 2013-09-06(d)(2)

It explicitly requires compliance with § 7554 where bail has been denied and petitioner is seeking review. We interpret it to require the court to comply with § 7554(d). We conclude that of the two options of § 7554(d), the best fit is with § 7554(d)(2) requiring the review hearing within five days of the date of the original denial of bail.

Section 7554(d)(2) requires a bail review hearing within five working days when a probationer is denied bail pending a revocation hearing.

State v. Campbell · filed 2014-10-07(d)(2)

Although no provision of § 7554 precisely applies to denial of bail pending a probation-revocation hearing, we concluded in Houle that the best fit is § 7554(d)(2), which requires a hearing within five working days of the date bail originally was denied. ... We see no reason to diverge from that reasoning in our decision today. As that time has already expired, defendant is entitled to immediate relief.

Section 7554(d)(1) permits a court to change a bail order without finding a change of circumstances.

State v. Pape · filed 2016-09-15(d)(1)

We conclude that, by the plain language of 13 V.S.A. § 7554(d)(1), the court need not find a change of circumstances to change the bail order.

A person detained because they cannot meet conditions of release is entitled to review within forty-eight hours of applying, with an opportunity for a hearing.

State v. Bessette · filed 2023-01-20(d)(1)

When conditions of release are imposed and a person is detained as a result of an inability to meet said conditions, that person is entitled to “have the conditions reviewed by a judge in the court having original jurisdiction over the offense charged” “within [forty-eight] hours following application.” 13 V.S.A. § 7554(d)(1). The movant “shall be given the opportunity for a hearing” and the reviewing judge must either amend the conditions “as requested” or provide a “reasonable basis for continuing the conditions imposed” on the record.

Section 7554’s conditions of release apply to defendants who have been released from custody, not defendants who remain in custody.

State v. Ashley · filed 1993-10-08

The court was correct in stressing concern for the public safety. We think, however, that the intent of the law is to protect the public from defendants who have been released from custody. The word “release” would be superfluous under the trial court’s construction of the statute. In addition, the language of 13 V.S.A. § 7554(c), which states that “a warrant for [the defendant’s] arrest will be issued immediately upon any such violation,” cannot be harmonized with the trial court’s reasoning. The language makes sense only assuming the defendant is on release.

Section 7554(a) requires a bail determination at the first appearance; when a full hearing cannot be held then, the court may make an initial probable-cause determination and hold a full hearing as soon as reasonably possible.

State v. Passino · filed 1990-05-18(a)

Our rules require, however, that bail be determined at the first appearance before a judicial officer. See V.R.Cr.P. 5(g); 13 V.S.A. § 7554(a). It will rarely be possible to hold a full hearing on whether evidence of guilt is great at the first appearance. Questions on admissibility of evidence will not yet have surfaced. To facilitate a fair and full determination of the bail question, the bail proceeding must itself have a “probable cause” stage.

Section 7554(b) requires a judge setting conditions of release to consider factors including the charges, the accused’s community ties, and criminal record.

State v. Williams · filed 2014-07-29(b)

I nonetheless find that, under our statutes, the trial court’s appropriate consideration of the relevant factors supports a determination that defendant is at some risk of flight and therefore supports a determination of $25,000 bail.

Section 7554(b) provides factors for deciding whether to grant bail and what conditions to impose.

State v. Breer · filed 2014-12-08(b)

Under 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b), there are several factors for the court to consider in deciding whether to grant bail and under what conditions. Here, the trial court expressly contemplated those factors. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not arbitrarily exercise or withhold its discretion in refusing to grant bail under § 7553.

A trial court’s discussion of the significant § 7554(b) factors central to its bail decision can be sufficient without a more detailed analysis.

State v. Orost · filed 2017-11-17(b)

While the trial court could have provided a more detailed analysis of the 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b) factors, its discussion of the multiple significant factors that were central to its analysis was sufficient in this case, and we therefore affirm.

Section 7554(b) permits a court deciding whether to set bail or release conditions to consider the charged offense, the evidence, and the accused’s circumstances.

State v. Book · filed 2021-04-30(b)

The court must exercise this discretion and in doing so may consider the factors in 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b).

Section 7554(b) permits a court to consider threats of violence when assessing the accused’s character and mental condition for release.

State v. Ware · filed 2015-09-25(b)

The trial court therefore permissibly relied on the information about defendant’s threat to his probation officer in considering the factors in § 7554(b), which specifically allows for consideration of violence or threats of violence in assessing the character and mental condition of the accused.

Section 7554(b) allows a trial court deciding release to consider the weight of the evidence, the seriousness of the charge, family ties, prior convictions, and recent violent threats.

State v. Blow · filed 2015-12-21(b)

In exercising its discretion to release a defendant, the trial court may look to the factors listed in § 7554, including the weight of evidence against the accused, the seriousness of the charge, the defendant’s family ties, his record of convictions, and the defendant’s recent history of violent threats.

Section 7554(b)’s factors may guide a court deciding whether to grant discretionary bail, but the court need not strictly apply each factor when the defendant has no right to bail.

State v. Henault · filed 2017-03-30(b)

When a trial court uses the § 7554(b) factors to guide consideration of whether to grant bail to a defendant not presumed to be bailable, as the court did here, the broad discretion allocated to the court indicates that strict application of each factor's narrowest definition is not required.

Section 7554(b) does not require a court deciding discretionary bail to consider every listed factor, including risk of flight.

State v. Blow · filed 2020-11-25(b)

But the court is not required to consider all the factors listed in § 7554(b) when exercising its broad discretion to impose bail or conditions of release, though that may be best practice. ... Accordingly, the court here did not have to consider the risk-of-flight factor at all, much less the effect of a weakened State’s case on that factor.

Section 7554 directs courts exercising release discretion to consider the State’s interests in reducing flight risk and danger to the public.

State v. Shores · filed 2017-05-04

The touchstones for evaluating the trial court’s exercise of discretion under § 7554 are the State’s interests in mitigating risk of flight and risk of danger to the public.

Section 7554(b)’s weight-of-the-evidence factor allows a court deciding discretionary release to consider the relative strength of the State’s case, including witness credibility and modifying evidence.

State v. Auclair · filed 2020-03-10(b)

In the context of a § 7554(b) analysis, the weight-of-the-evidence factor can also refer to the relative strength of the State’s case against the defendant. ... In this context, the trial court is not bound to the Rule 12(d) standard, and could consider the credibility of the State’s witnesses and modifying evidence in exercising its discretion.

Section 7554(b) allows a court assessing the strength of the State’s case for pretrial release to rely on a finding that the evidence of guilt is great without considering the effect of modifying evidence.

State v. Lafayette · filed 2021-05-11(b)

Here, the court did not abuse its discretion when it considered its determination that the evidence of guilt was great in assessing the strength of the State’s case under § 7554(b). As we recognized in Auclair, this factor, coupled with a charge carrying a life sentence, provides an impetus for flight. The court did not err when it did not consider the effect of modifying evidence on this decision.

When a presumption against release arises under § 7553, the defendant bears the burden of persuading the court to grant release under § 7554(b).

State v. Vialet · filed 2021-08-12(b)

While the State did not put on any evidence related to the § 7554(b) factors, it was defendant’s burden to persuade the court to exercise its discretion to release him on bail or conditions.

Section 7554(b) lists factors a court may consider when deciding discretionary release under § 7553, but the court need not consider every factor.

State v. Main · filed 2022-04-15(b)

In considering discretionary release under § 7553, we have emphasized that courts are not compelled to consider each of the § 7554(b) factors as § 7554(b) does not explicitly apply to the discretionary-release analysis.

Section 7554(b) permits a court deciding whether to release a defendant held without bail to consider factors including the weight of the evidence, criminal history, threats, community ties, and financial resources.

State v. Tarbell · filed 2021-08-25(b)

In the hold-without-bail decision, the court considered several § 7554 factors, including the “substantial” weight of the evidence, defendant’s pronounced criminal history, evidence of his conduct in the police cruiser, evidence of threats against complainant, and defendant’s ties to the community and limited financial resources. We cannot conclude that the court abused its discretion in declining to release defendant or to alter its order in the face of the evidence presented at the hearing.

When a defendant is presumed ineligible for bail under § 7553, the court may consider § 7554(b)'s release factors but need not consider every factor.

State v. Gundrum · filed 2022-03-21(b)

Courts may consider the release factors in 13 V.S.A. § 7554 to articulate this interest, but they are not required to do so.

Section 7554(b) permits a court to deny release when supported findings on the relevant factors favor incarceration.

State v. Jaiden Green · filed 2024-06-18(b)

The trial court relied on sufficient facts in finding that the § 7554(b) factors in this case favored incarceration and thus declining to release defendant into the Mongeons’ custody.

Section 7554(b) permits, but does not require, a court to consider its factors when deciding whether to release a defendant who is not entitled to bail.

State v. O'Grady · filed 2024-07-23(b)

In exercising its discretion, the court may, but is not required to consider the factors in § 7554(b).

Section 7554(b) permits a court to weigh the nature of the charged conduct when assessing risk of flight and danger to the public.

State v. Rheaume · filed 2024-08-14(b)

We agree that the nature of defendant’s conduct was highly probative of this § 7554(b) factor as it bore directly on his willingness to flee prosecution and risk the safety of others.

Section 7554(b) lists factors a court may consider when deciding whether to release a defendant held without bail, but the court need not make specific findings on each factor.

State v. Stroble · filed 2024-12-10(b)

The record shows that the court considered several of the factors in § 7554(b) and determined that, collectively, the factors did not weigh in favor of release. The court was not required to make specific findings as to each factor.

Section 7554(b)’s factors may guide a court deciding whether to release a defendant held under § 7553, but the court need not consider or address every factor.

State v. Buell · filed 2025-10-06(b)

The trial court may look to the 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b) factors in guiding its decision but is not required to consider the factors or to address every listed factor.

A court deciding whether to hold a defendant without bail may consider the § 7554(b) factors without expressly listing them.

State v. Rivera-Martinez · filed 2021-12-21(b)

Nevertheless, we have said that listing § 7554(b) factors is “best practice.” State v. Auclair, 2020 VT 26, ¶ 21, 211 Vt. 651, 229 A.3d 1019 (mem.). ... While the court never explicitly announced that it was looking to the § 7554 factors, it considered them in its analysis.

Section 7554(b)’s factors may guide a court deciding whether release conditions can address flight risk and public safety, but the court need not explicitly consider every factor.

State v. Waterman · filed 2022-01-05(b)

In doing so, the court may look to the factors in 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b) to assess whether conditions of release can be imposed that mitigate the risk of flight and ensure the safety of the public; however, the court is not required to explicitly consider each factor.

Section 7554(b)(2) factors guide a court’s assessment of flight risk and public safety when considering conditions of release.

State v. Labrecque · filed 2022-01-24(b)(2)

We therefore look to the § 7554(b) factors to assess defendant’s flight risk and risk to public safety in light of defendant’s proposal for electronic monitoring. ... The strength of the evidence justifying defendant’s continued detention remains strong due to his risk to public safety.

Section 7554(b) provides factors a court may consider, but need not consider, when deciding whether to release a defendant held without bail under § 7553.

State v. Brown · filed 2023-12-01(b)

Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the court may consider the factors in § 7554(b) in this analysis but is not required to do so.

Section 7554(b) allows courts to use its listed factors to assess whether release conditions can mitigate flight risk and protect public safety.

State v. Samplatsky · filed 2026-04-24(b)

In making this determination, the trial court may use the factors in § 7554(b) to determine if conditions of release can “mitigate the risk of flight and ensure the safety of the public,” which are the two “touchstones” for evaluating whether to release a defendant with conditions. ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying defendant’s motion to review bail after determining that her release plan would not “reasonably prevent defendant from relapsing and becoming a very real risk to public safety.”

A finding that the evidence of guilt is great establishes the weight-of-the-evidence factor under § 7554(b).

State v. Richard Welch, Jr. · filed 2022-12-22(b)

Accordingly, aside from any comment concerning the strength of the evidence, the court’s finding that the evidence of guilt is great is already established for purposes of this § 7554(b) factor.

A court deciding whether to grant discretionary release under § 7553 may consider the § 7554(b) factors but need not address every factor.

State v. Blaisdell · filed 2023-12-01(b)

As defendant correctly concedes, a trial court is not obligated to refer to the § 7554(b) factors in exercising its discretion under § 7553. But if a court decides to do so, it is not required to engage every § 7554(b) factor “as § 7554(b) does not explicitly apply to the discretionary-release analysis.” State v. Main, 2022 VT 18, ¶ 12, 216 Vt. 605, 279 A.3d 113 (mem.).

Section 7554’s release factors inform the court’s discretion to release a defendant even after it finds grounds to hold the defendant without bail under § 7553a.

State v. Perron · filed 2024-07-12

Still, the Court retains some discretion to release defendant in light of the factors set out in § 7554 or others raised by defendant. ... In this case, defendant has not proffered convincing considerations under § 7554 or otherwise that might warrant his release as a matter of the Court’s discretion.

Section 7554(b)(2) allows courts considering discretionary release to weigh the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s character and record, and the proposed place to stay.

State v. Randy Jacobs, Jr. · filed 2024-10-22(b)(2)

“In exercising its discretion to release a defendant, the trial court may look to the factors listed in § 7554.” Id. ¶ 10. The court’s “discretion is broad, but the bail decision cannot be arbitrary.” Id. ¶ 22. The court acted well within its discretion here in declining to release defendant under conditions.

Section 7554 governs conditions of release on bail and does not define criminal contempt.

In Re CW · filed 1999-08-27

13 V.S.A. § 7554 deals with conditions of release on bail and contains no definition of what is criminal contempt.