Background
Mark Sterling was charged in June 2026 with aggravated stalking while in possession of a deadly weapon (13 V.S.A. § 1063(a)(5)), along with related offenses including violation of an abuse prevention order, unlawful firearm possession, and aggravated operation of a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent. The charges arose from two visits Sterling made to the home of his former spouse, B.S., in violation of a final relief-from-abuse order. During both visits, Sterling had a handgun and a long-handled knife in a backpack that remained in the stolen dump truck he was driving; he did not display or reference the weapons. B.S. described him as non-confrontational, and no physical contact or threats occurred.
The State moved to hold Sterling without bail under 13 V.S.A. § 7553a, relying on the aggravated-stalking-with-a-deadly-weapon charge. After a trial court hearing, Sterling was ordered held without bail. He timely sought a de novo evidentiary hearing before a single justice of the Vermont Supreme Court, as authorized by 13 V.S.A. § 7556(d). That hearing was held on July 2, 2026, on a stipulated record from the initial proceedings.
Sterling argued that aggravated stalking while possessing a deadly weapon is not a felony “an element of which involves an act of violence” as required to trigger the hold-without-bail statute, that the evidence of guilt was not “great,” and that the State had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release could protect the public. He alternatively argued the statute was unconstitutionally vague.
The Court’s Holding
The court reversed the hold-without-bail order on two independent grounds and remanded to the trial court for prompt imposition of conditions of release. First, applying its prior ruling in State v. Beldiman, No. 25-AP-211 (Vt. July 16, 2025), the court held that aggravated stalking—even in its aggravated form requiring possession of a deadly weapon under § 1063(a)(5)—is not a felony an element of which involves an act of violence, as that phrase is used in 13 V.S.A. § 7553a and Chapter II, § 40(2) of the Vermont Constitution. Because the underlying stalking offense can be established by conduct that interferes solely with property and requires only a negligence-level mens rea (“knew or should have known”), it does not satisfy the constitutional threshold for the hold-without-bail remedy. Adding the weapon-possession element did not change that analysis, because the constitutionally troubling elements of the base offense remain.
Second, even assuming the charge were legally eligible for hold-without-bail treatment, the court found the State had not established by clear and convincing evidence both that Sterling’s release posed a substantial threat of physical violence and that no conditions could reasonably prevent that violence. Sterling had no criminal record, no prior history of physical violence or threats toward B.S., no misconduct while in custody, and B.S. herself described him as non-confrontational and motivated by a desperate search for his mail. The weapons were never displayed or used in any threatening manner.
The court directed that the hold-without-bail order be vacated only upon the trial court’s imposition of a comprehensive set of conditions of release, including no-contact and stay-away provisions, weapons and alcohol prohibitions, mental health evaluation and treatment, a curfew, and a requirement to notify counsel and the court of address changes.
Key Takeaways
- Under Beldiman, aggravated stalking under 13 V.S.A. § 1063(a) is not a felony “an element of which involves an act of violence” for purposes of Vermont’s hold-without-bail statute, because the offense can rest on property interference and a negligence mens rea; the court held this conclusion was not altered by the weapon-possession variant under § 1063(a)(5).
- The hold-without-bail statute’s third prong requires clear and convincing evidence of both a substantial threat of physical violence and the inadequacy of all conditions of release — an exacting standard that the State failed to meet where there was no history of physical violence, the defendant was non-confrontational during the charged incidents, and the weapons were never displayed.
- The court found itself bound by Beldiman under State v. Downing, notwithstanding that Beldiman was unpublished, and noted the State’s arguments for reconsidering Beldiman — including the Legislature’s contemporaneous enactment of the stalking statute alongside the bail amendment — were not insubstantial but for a higher court to resolve.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the narrow scope of Vermont’s hold-without-bail remedy, confirming that the constitutional and statutory requirement of a felony “involving an act of violence” is assessed by examining the outer limits of a statute’s elements — not the specific facts of the case — and that crimes whose elements can be satisfied by property interference or negligent conduct fall outside that category even when weapons are involved. Prosecutors seeking pretrial detention for stalking defendants in Vermont will need to identify charges whose elements categorically require violent or threatening conduct directed at a person.
The ruling also illustrates the high evidentiary bar the State must clear on the danger prong. The court’s detailed comparison with prior cases where hold-without-bail was upheld — involving actual strangulation, repeated physical violence, and contempt for court orders — signals that erratic behavior, civil order violations, and weapon possession, without more, will rarely suffice to satisfy the clear-and-convincing standard when the defendant has no history of physical aggression and has behaved properly in custody.