The Vermont Supreme Court is reviewing a lower court's decision to deny bail to Ramone Hosten, who faces domestic violence charges in Chittenden County. The case, *State v. Ramone Hosten* (Vt. 2026), represents a challenge to Vermont's pretrial detention practices under the state's bail reform statutes.
Hosten was charged with first-degree aggravated domestic assault in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1043(a)(1) and domestic assault in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1042. The charges stem from alleged assaults against a complainant on or about Sept. 19, 2025. The state obtained an arrest warrant for Hosten on Oct. 15, 2025, and he was arraigned on Dec. 11, 2025.
Following his arraignment, the Chittenden County Superior Court, Criminal Division, held Hosten without bail pending a weight-of-the-evidence hearing. Trial Judge Robert W. Katims presided over the proceedings that led to the contested detention order under 13 V.S.A. § 7553a, Vermont's pretrial detention statute.
The weight-of-the-evidence hearing took place on Jan. 7, 2026, where the trial court evaluated the strength of the prosecution's case. According to court records, the trial court found sufficient evidence when viewed "in the light most favorable to the State" to justify continued detention without bail.
Hosten subsequently appealed the detention order to the Vermont Supreme Court, seeking de novo review pursuant to 13 V.S.A. § 7556(d) and V.R.A.P. 9(b). The appeal was docketed as Supreme Court Case No. 26-AP-008 for the January Term 2026.
The de novo review standard is significant in Vermont appellate practice. As the Supreme Court noted in its entry order, citing *State v. Madison* (Vt. 1995), "In conducting a review de novo of a challenged finding or conclusion, a justice must come to an independent decision based on the record." The court emphasized that "the justice need not pay any deference to decisions of the lower court when reviewing the challenged findings and conclusions."
This standard means the Vermont Supreme Court will essentially retry the bail determination, making its own independent assessment of whether Hosten should remain detained without bail. The court is not bound by the trial court's conclusions and will evaluate the evidence fresh.
According to court records, the parties have stipulated to the trial court record, with Hosten supplementing the record with a single additional exhibit. Vermont Rule of Appellate Procedure 9(b)(1)(E) allows for such supplementation, stating that "the reviewing justice will conduct a de novo review based on the record and any additional evidence authorized by the justice for good cause shown."
The case highlights Vermont's approach to pretrial detention, particularly in domestic violence cases. Vermont's pretrial detention statute, 13 V.S.A. § 7553a, allows courts to hold defendants without bail under specific circumstances, balancing public safety concerns against individual liberty interests.
The charges against Hosten carry serious implications. First-degree aggravated domestic assault is among Vermont's most serious domestic violence offenses, while the accompanying domestic assault charge represents the underlying conduct. The specific nature of the alleged Sept. 19, 2025 incident has not been detailed in the available court records.
The timeline of the case reflects the careful procedural steps required in Vermont's criminal justice system. From the initial alleged incident in September to the arrest warrant in October, arraignment in December, and weight-of-the-evidence hearing in January, the case has proceeded through established legal channels.
The Supreme Court's review will determine whether the evidence presented at the weight-of-the-evidence hearing justifies continued detention without bail. Factors typically considered in such determinations include the strength of the prosecution's case, the defendant's criminal history, flight risk, and potential danger to the community or alleged victim.
Vermont's bail reform efforts in recent years have aimed to balance competing interests in pretrial detention decisions. The state has worked to reduce unnecessary pretrial detention while maintaining appropriate safeguards for public safety, particularly in cases involving domestic violence where victim safety is a primary concern.
The outcome of Hosten's appeal could provide guidance for future pretrial detention decisions in Vermont courts. While the case involves specific factual circumstances, the Supreme Court's application of the de novo review standard may clarify how appellate courts should approach challenges to detention orders.
The Vermont Supreme Court's entry order indicates the case is proceeding through the established appellate process. The court will review the trial court record, consider any supplemental evidence, and make an independent determination regarding Hosten's continued detention.
This case demonstrates the important role of appellate review in Vermont's criminal justice system, ensuring that detention decisions receive careful scrutiny while respecting the rights of both defendants and alleged victims in domestic violence cases.