Date: 10-22-2024

Case Style:

State of Vermont v. Randy Jacobs, Jr.

Case Number: 24-CR-152

Judge: Katherine A. Hayes

Court: Superior Court, Windham County, Vermont

Plaintiff's Attorney: Windham County Vermont District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Newfane Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Newfane, Vermont kidnapping and domestic assault criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant.

¶ 2. A five-count information charged defendant with one count of kidnapping, one count of aggravated domestic assault, and three counts of domestic assault.[1] For the kidnapping charge, the information alleged that defendant knowingly restrained another person with the intent to inflict bodily injury upon the restrained person or place the restrained person in fear that any person will be subjected to bodily injury. That charge carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. 13 V.S.A. § 2405(b). The State moved to hold defendant without bail pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7553, which allows a person to be held without bail if the offense is "punishable by life imprisonment" and "the evidence of guilt is great."

¶ 3. The trial court then held a weight-of-the-evidence hearing and applied a § 7553 analysis: "The evidence of guilt is great if substantial, admissible evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State and excluding modifying evidence, can fairly and reasonably show defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Blow, 2020 VT 106, ¶ 3, 213 Vt. 651, 251 A.3d 517 (mem.) (quotation omitted). If the State meets this initial burden, a presumption against release arises, and "the burden shifts to the defendant to persuade the court to exercise its discretion to set bail or conditions of release." State v. Auclair, 2020 VT 26, ¶ 16, 211 Vt. 651, 229 A.3d 1019 (mem.). The court must exercise its discretion in determining whether to impose bail or conditions
of release and in doing so may consider the factors in 13 V.S.A. § 7554(b). Id. ¶ 3. These factors include:

[T]he nature and circumstances of the offense charged; the weight of the evidence against the accused; the accused's family ties, employment, character and mental condition, length of residence in the community, record of convictions, and record of appearance at court proceedings or of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear at court proceedings.

13 V.S.A. § 7554(b)(2). The court may also consider "[r]ecent history of actual violence or threats of violence . . . as bearing on the character and mental condition of the accused." Id.

¶ 4. The State introduced the following evidence at the weight-of-the-evidence hearing. The charges stemmed from an incident between defendant and complainant, his then-girlfriend. On August 29, 2024, defendant had been "agitated all day, wanting to fight" and arrived at complainant's house at 7:00 p.m. After eating dinner together, defendant got upset when complainant "abused" his dog by giving it less leftover bacon than complainant's dog. Complainant stated that this was when the night became "tortuous." She described being followed and cornered by defendant in each room she went into and not being let out of the bedroom. Complainant attempted to leave the house twice and told defendant that she wanted to leave but "every time I tr[ied] to leave, he [threw] me away from the door, slam[med] the door." When complainant asked "why are you still here? What are we still doing?" defendant replied, "because I'm not fucking done with you" and "you'll know when I'm fucking done." Complainant estimated that hours elapsed between her attempts to leave and said she was "basically held prisoner in my home for hours on end." She stated that she was only able to "bolt" out the back door at 3:00 a.m.

¶ 5. Complainant described multiple acts of violence throughout the night. She described that defendant "kept me-he wouldn't let me leave and he just kept grabbing the back of my head, holding me down with his knee on my neck . . . spitting on me, trying to burn me with cigarettes." She described that defendant pulled her hair which "fe[lt] like he [was] ripping my scalp off my head." At one point, when defendant had backed complainant against the sink in the kitchen, complainant described that she grabbed a knife to get him away from her. Defendant then grabbed her by the arm and told her, "I will fucking kill you if you don't put that knife back." Complainant stated that when she put the knife down, defendant threw her to the ground, pressed his knee into her throat for minutes, held his fist over her, and yelled "I'll kill you, you fucking cunt" and "if you were a fucking man, I would fucking kill you right now." At one point during the evening, defendant was attempting to burn complainant with a cigarette and complainant was attempting to hold him away when the cigarette dropped to the ground. Complainant yelled "it's burning" and defendant responded, "I hope we fucking burn." Complainant also recounted that after her second attempt to leave, defendant grabbed her, threw her down, and poured his dirty bong water on her. Complainant described it as "hours of nonstop, slow burn torture."

¶ 6. Complainant stated that she went to take a shower after defendant poured the bong water on her. Coming out of the shower, complainant observed that defendant was not in the kitchen and instead, was down the hallway by the guest bedroom. She took the opportunity to escape through the kitchen and mudroom, run through her yard, and lie down to hide in the brush under the power lines near her house. Complainant saw a spotlight and heard defendant yelling her name and "come out, come out, wherever you are." After seeing defendant use the spotlight, she crawled further into the power line area. Complainant described that it was the scariest thing she had ever experienced, and she felt like she "was being hunted."

¶ 7. The State presented evidence that defendant had previously been abusive and physically controlling in his relationship with complainant and other women in his life. Complainant recounted that defendant often grabbed her by the jaw or her hair, had headbutted her in the forehead, and had thrown her across a wrought iron table. She also stated that this was not the first time that defendant had prevented her from leaving her house while also assaulting her. Defendant's former partner, and the mother of his child, testified that defendant had been physically abusive towards her more than once a month, describing that "he would back you into something and corner you and then grab you, typically by the face .... There were many, many times I had bruises along cheekbones and along the bottom of my jaw and on my neck." She also stated that defendant had engaged in "controlling" behavior describing that "I wasn't allowed really to leave the house without his permission." Defendant's former partner also stated that she had "personally witnessed [defendant] not abid[ing] by court orders" and was concerned that he would not do so in this case either. Complainant's adult daughter also testified that defendant "would become violent if we-both of us, my mother and I-did not do exactly as he wanted" and that defendant would "get in my face as well as my mother's face . . . screaming very, very loud [and] grab her by the arms if she wasn't looking at him." The daughter also stated that defendant had "spit in my face before" and that if defendant was released, she "would be scared for my safety, as well as my mother's," and defendant's former partner who testified.

¶ 8. The court heard testimony from an individual who stated that he would be willing to allow defendant to move his camper onto the individual's property and would help defendant by picking up groceries and other basics if a curfew was imposed. Defendant also presented testimony that multiple members of defendant's family live in Vermont and just across the New Hampshire border. The court also reviewed defendant's criminal record which included a conviction for a violation of an abuse-prevention order in 2012, three simple assaults in 1997, 2007, and 2008, and a probation violation in 1999.

¶ 9. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that the State had met its burden of demonstrating that the evidence of guilt was great. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence "to establish that . . . [complainant] was indeed unlawfully restrained, and that she was in reasonable fear that she would be subject to more than bodily injury .... And the purpose of the restraint was to . . . continually torture and torment her." The court declined to release defendant because it found that several factors weighed against a discretionary grant of release. The court first considered defendant's criminal record including convictions for one felony and multiple misdemeanors, no violations of probation or parole, and some violations of court orders.[2]The court noted that defendant had shown that he would have a place to park his camper to stay and an individual willing to help defendant if a curfew was imposed. However, the court also considered defendant's history and "pattern of rage and anger and of acting out in violent, threatening, and coercive ways towards women in his life" and stated it was "completely unpersuaded that releasing [defendant] at this point would be safe" and that "the evidence establishes that [defendant] loses self-control completely and . . . could not comply" with an order that would require him to stay away from the complainant and the other women who testified at the hearing. Therefore, the court granted the State's motion to hold defendant without bail.

* * *

State v. Jacobs, 2024 VT 69, 24-AP-263 (Vt. Oct 22, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: