Dooley, J.
Defendant appeals a decision that he be held without bail, arguing that (1) the State did not establish that the [453]*453evidence of guilt was great as is required by the Vermont Constitution in a denial of bail; (2) even if the constitutional right is inapplicable, the trial court abused its discretion in denying bail; and (3) the denial of bail deprived defendant of both substantive and procedural due process of law. We affirm.
On January 6, 1993, defendant was served with a temporary restraining order for relief from abuse prohibiting him from approaching his former girlfriend. On January 9, 1993, he was arrested for violating the restraining order and then released on conditions that he abide by it. One day later, on January 10, 1993, he was again arrested for violating the order. Because he had been released on condition he abide by the order, he was also charged with violating the condition of release. On January 12, 1993, he was released on conditions, including that he not consume alcohol or have probable cause found that he had committed a felony.
On February 23, 1993, defendant was charged with aggravated sexual assault on a nine-year-old girl, a crime for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment. See 13 V.S.A. § 3253(b). The alleged crime occurred on February 22, while defendant was free on conditions of release from the earlier charges. At the time of arrest, his blood-alcohol level was tested at .09%. After a bail review hearing, the court ordered defendant to be held without bail, for the following reasons:
His argument that he has “seen the light,” while attractive, is less than convincing. In fact, it is not believed by this court. Were it a single order that had a single violation, it would be one thing. These are multiple orders and have multiple violations and the court concludes that the defendant is simply not motivated to abide by orders of the court.
The court referred to defendant as “seeing the light” because that was defendant’s position as to why he should be released on conditions.
Defendant first argues that he may not be held without bail under Vermont Constitution chapter II, § 40 and 13 V.S.A. § 7553 because, although he is charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment, the court could not find that “evidence of guilt is great.” Chapter II, § 40 of the Vermont Constitution for offenses not punishable by life imprisonment states that there is a constitutional right to bail, but there is no [454]*454constitutional right to bail for offenses punishable by life imprisonment where the evidence of guilt is great. Thus, defendant argues that the right to bail exists where a defendant faces a punishment of life imprisonment if the State fails to show that evidence of guilt is great. Defendant argues that this is such a case.
This Court has determined that evidence meets the constitutional threshold if it meets the standards of V.R.Cr.P. 12(d) for establishment of a prima facie case. See State v. Duff, 151 Vt. 433, 440, 563 A.2d 258, 263 (1989). Under that standard, the State must establish “by affidavits, depositions, sworn oral testimony, or other admissible evidence ‘that it has substantial, admissible evidence as to the elements of the offense . . . sufficient to prevent the grant of a motion for judgment of acquittal at the trial.”’ Id. at 439, 563 A.2d at 263 (quoting V.R.Cr.P. 12(d)(2)). The Court emphasized that this standard adds two elements beyond that necessary for establishing probable cause: “(1) that substantial, admissible evidence of guilt exists, and (2) the evidence can fairly and reasonably convince a fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty.” Id. at 440, 563 A.2d at 263 (emphasis in original). In a later case, this Court emphasized that this standard “cannot be met by inadmissible evidence.” State v. Passino, 154 Vt. 377, 381, 577 A.2d 281, 284 (1990).
The admissibility requirement imposed in Passino and Duff refers to admissibility of the evidence at trial. For purposes of analysis, we can view the process created by those decisions as involving two steps: (1) whether the State has shown evidence that can fairly and reasonably convince a fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty, and (2) whether the State has shown this evidence will be admissible at trial.
Defendant asserts that the court ignored the second step and used inadmissible evidence in concluding that the evidence against him was great. This evidence included a medical record that had not been authenticated, V.R.E. 803; hearsay statements of the family and police that were inadmissible because the child victim was not available to testify, V.R.E. 804a(a)(2) and (3); and a statement of the child victim that did not name the perpetrator and was not analyzed for trustworthiness, V.R.E. 804a(b). Although the basis for the court’s ruling is [455]*455somewhat confusing, especially in separating out admissibility in the bail hearing from admission at trial, we agree that the court failed to go through the second step of the process. Thus, the bail hearing record does not show that at least part of the evidence considered by the court will be admissible at trial. For example, without a foundation, there is no showing that the medical record will be admissible, a defect admitted by the State at the bail hearing.
The State argues correctly that it may proceed by affidavits. V.R.Cr.P. 12(d)(2). The child victim’s affidavit, although it does not name the perpetrator, provides admissible evidence that a crime was committed, the details of the crime, and the availability of the victim to testify. It in turn supports the admissibility of the evidence offered in the affidavits of her mother and another family member by stating the age and availability of the minor. See V.R.E. 804a(a)(l), (3). These affidavits recount the victim telling them what transpired and naming defendant as the perpetrator. The victim’s statement occurred shortly after the alleged assault such that “the time, content and circumstances of the statements provide substantial indicia of trustworthiness.” V.R.E. 804a(a)(4); see State v. Duffy, 158 Vt. 170, 171, 605 A.2d 533, 535 (1992). Thus, the record establishes that the evidence of the family members will be admissible under the hearsay exception for statements from minor victims of sexual assault crimes. See V.R.E. 804a. Once this evidence is considered, the State has shown that evidence of guilt is great.
We caution that although the record clearly shows the evidence will be admissible in this case, that will not always be so. Trial courts have discretion in the admission of evidence, and normally that discretion must be exercised to determine whether evidence proffered by the State at the bail hearing will be admissible at trial. Failure to do so will often mean that defendant retains the constitutional right to bail.
Defendant makes three arguments why the denial of bail is erroneous even though there is no constitutional right to bail. Before addressing them specifically, we emphasize the narrowness of the question before us. We had occasion recently to explore the constitutional right to bail and the limits it places on the Legislature or the courts to deny bail in specific cases. See [456]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dooley, J.
Defendant appeals a decision that he be held without bail, arguing that (1) the State did not establish that the [453]*453evidence of guilt was great as is required by the Vermont Constitution in a denial of bail; (2) even if the constitutional right is inapplicable, the trial court abused its discretion in denying bail; and (3) the denial of bail deprived defendant of both substantive and procedural due process of law. We affirm.
On January 6, 1993, defendant was served with a temporary restraining order for relief from abuse prohibiting him from approaching his former girlfriend. On January 9, 1993, he was arrested for violating the restraining order and then released on conditions that he abide by it. One day later, on January 10, 1993, he was again arrested for violating the order. Because he had been released on condition he abide by the order, he was also charged with violating the condition of release. On January 12, 1993, he was released on conditions, including that he not consume alcohol or have probable cause found that he had committed a felony.
On February 23, 1993, defendant was charged with aggravated sexual assault on a nine-year-old girl, a crime for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment. See 13 V.S.A. § 3253(b). The alleged crime occurred on February 22, while defendant was free on conditions of release from the earlier charges. At the time of arrest, his blood-alcohol level was tested at .09%. After a bail review hearing, the court ordered defendant to be held without bail, for the following reasons:
His argument that he has “seen the light,” while attractive, is less than convincing. In fact, it is not believed by this court. Were it a single order that had a single violation, it would be one thing. These are multiple orders and have multiple violations and the court concludes that the defendant is simply not motivated to abide by orders of the court.
The court referred to defendant as “seeing the light” because that was defendant’s position as to why he should be released on conditions.
Defendant first argues that he may not be held without bail under Vermont Constitution chapter II, § 40 and 13 V.S.A. § 7553 because, although he is charged with an offense punishable by life imprisonment, the court could not find that “evidence of guilt is great.” Chapter II, § 40 of the Vermont Constitution for offenses not punishable by life imprisonment states that there is a constitutional right to bail, but there is no [454]*454constitutional right to bail for offenses punishable by life imprisonment where the evidence of guilt is great. Thus, defendant argues that the right to bail exists where a defendant faces a punishment of life imprisonment if the State fails to show that evidence of guilt is great. Defendant argues that this is such a case.
This Court has determined that evidence meets the constitutional threshold if it meets the standards of V.R.Cr.P. 12(d) for establishment of a prima facie case. See State v. Duff, 151 Vt. 433, 440, 563 A.2d 258, 263 (1989). Under that standard, the State must establish “by affidavits, depositions, sworn oral testimony, or other admissible evidence ‘that it has substantial, admissible evidence as to the elements of the offense . . . sufficient to prevent the grant of a motion for judgment of acquittal at the trial.”’ Id. at 439, 563 A.2d at 263 (quoting V.R.Cr.P. 12(d)(2)). The Court emphasized that this standard adds two elements beyond that necessary for establishing probable cause: “(1) that substantial, admissible evidence of guilt exists, and (2) the evidence can fairly and reasonably convince a fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty.” Id. at 440, 563 A.2d at 263 (emphasis in original). In a later case, this Court emphasized that this standard “cannot be met by inadmissible evidence.” State v. Passino, 154 Vt. 377, 381, 577 A.2d 281, 284 (1990).
The admissibility requirement imposed in Passino and Duff refers to admissibility of the evidence at trial. For purposes of analysis, we can view the process created by those decisions as involving two steps: (1) whether the State has shown evidence that can fairly and reasonably convince a fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is guilty, and (2) whether the State has shown this evidence will be admissible at trial.
Defendant asserts that the court ignored the second step and used inadmissible evidence in concluding that the evidence against him was great. This evidence included a medical record that had not been authenticated, V.R.E. 803; hearsay statements of the family and police that were inadmissible because the child victim was not available to testify, V.R.E. 804a(a)(2) and (3); and a statement of the child victim that did not name the perpetrator and was not analyzed for trustworthiness, V.R.E. 804a(b). Although the basis for the court’s ruling is [455]*455somewhat confusing, especially in separating out admissibility in the bail hearing from admission at trial, we agree that the court failed to go through the second step of the process. Thus, the bail hearing record does not show that at least part of the evidence considered by the court will be admissible at trial. For example, without a foundation, there is no showing that the medical record will be admissible, a defect admitted by the State at the bail hearing.
The State argues correctly that it may proceed by affidavits. V.R.Cr.P. 12(d)(2). The child victim’s affidavit, although it does not name the perpetrator, provides admissible evidence that a crime was committed, the details of the crime, and the availability of the victim to testify. It in turn supports the admissibility of the evidence offered in the affidavits of her mother and another family member by stating the age and availability of the minor. See V.R.E. 804a(a)(l), (3). These affidavits recount the victim telling them what transpired and naming defendant as the perpetrator. The victim’s statement occurred shortly after the alleged assault such that “the time, content and circumstances of the statements provide substantial indicia of trustworthiness.” V.R.E. 804a(a)(4); see State v. Duffy, 158 Vt. 170, 171, 605 A.2d 533, 535 (1992). Thus, the record establishes that the evidence of the family members will be admissible under the hearsay exception for statements from minor victims of sexual assault crimes. See V.R.E. 804a. Once this evidence is considered, the State has shown that evidence of guilt is great.
We caution that although the record clearly shows the evidence will be admissible in this case, that will not always be so. Trial courts have discretion in the admission of evidence, and normally that discretion must be exercised to determine whether evidence proffered by the State at the bail hearing will be admissible at trial. Failure to do so will often mean that defendant retains the constitutional right to bail.
Defendant makes three arguments why the denial of bail is erroneous even though there is no constitutional right to bail. Before addressing them specifically, we emphasize the narrowness of the question before us. We had occasion recently to explore the constitutional right to bail and the limits it places on the Legislature or the courts to deny bail in specific cases. See [456]*456State v. Sauve, 159 Vt. 566, 621 A.2d 1296 (1993). Except in very limited and special circumstances where the State’s interest is legitimate and compelling, a court may not deny bail in the face of the constitutional right. Id. at 573-74, 621 A.2d at 1301. The Sauve requirements, to the extent they are based on the Vermont constitutional right to bail, do not apply in this case. Instead, the issue we address is whether in the absence of the constitutional right the court may deny bail because of a substantial and very recent record of violations of important conditions of release.
We also emphasize that we are not conducting a de novo proceeding on whether to grant bail in this case. Our standard of review is set forth in the applicable statute. We must affirm the trial court’s decision if it is supported by the proceedings below. 13 V.S-.A. § 7556(b).
Defendant’s first argument is that the trial court decision is an abuse of discretion. We have held that even where there is no constitutional right to bail the trial court has the discretion to grant bail. See Duff, 151 Vt. at 441, 563 A.2d at 264. We have never comprehensively defined the breadth of a trial court’s discretion. Our recent precedents recognize the existence of discretion without setting specific standards for its exercise. See Passino, 154 Vt. at 379, 577 A.2d at 283; Duff, 151 Vt. at 441, 563 A.2d at 264. Although the Legislature has specifically defined the right to bail where the Vermont constitutional provision applies, it has provided only that a defendant charged with a crime punishable by life imprisonment “shall not be bailable as a matter of right” when the evidence of guilt is great. 13 V.S.A. § 7553.
We have, however, defined the court’s discretion sufficiently to address this case. The decision that forms the basis of our current law is In re Dexter, 93 Vt. 304, 314-15, 107 A. 134, 138 (1919), which first enunciated the discretion of the trial court to grant bail where the constitutional right is inapplicable. The Court noted that the discretion involved is “sound, judicial discretion, controlled by certain and well defined and established rules,” but failed to describe those rules. Id. at 315, 107 A. at 138. It did state:
Ordinarily, in practice, bail is refused after indictment found, in capital cases, where the proof of guilt is evident or [457]*457presumption great; but we are not called upon to define more particularly the practice or controlling features in such cases generally .... Had the county court exercised its discretion in determining the question, very likely we should leave the matter as there determined, let it be either way, without further consideration. But the court . . . decided against the relator as a matter of law. This it could not lawfully do. The relator was entitled to the benefit of the court’s judicial discretion, and it not being accorded her, she was deprived of her right in that behalf.
Id. The defendant in Dexter had been acquitted, but the State obtained a new trial and the issue involved her right to bail at the second trial. The Court concluded that the circumstances ordinarily were sufficient to allow the defendant to have bail, but left the question entirely to the trial court.
Duff follows up on the language of Dexter, suggesting the considerations are similar to those in determining the right to bail post-conviction. See 151 Vt. at 441, 563 A.2d at 263-64. We required a hearing on whether the court should allow bail, but added that “the trial court is under no obligation to set any conditions of release as a result of that hearing.” Id. at 441, 563 A.2d at 264.
The holdings in Duff and Dexter are similar to those in other states that have explored the issue. For example, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court explained the standard as follows:
[B]ail in such a case is not a matter of right but is discretionary with the judge, who is to give due weight to the nature and circumstances of the case. On the subject of discretionary bail in capital cases, Blackstone’s observations are no less pertinent today than they were two hundred years ago. “And herein,” he said, “the wisdom of the law is very manifest. To allow bail to be taken commonly for such enormous crimes, would greatly tend to elude the public justice: and yet there are cases, though they rarely happen, in which it would be hard and unjust to confine a man in prison, though accused even of the greatest offense.” 4 Blackstone, Commentaries (8th ed.) 299.
Commonwealth v. Baker, 177 N.E.2d 783, 786 (Mass. 1961) (citations omitted); see also Arthur v. Harper, 371 So. 2d 96, 100 [458]*458(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978) (“bail should not be routinely granted in such cases, but rather a heavy burden should be placed upon the defendant to clearly demonstrate that he is entitled to bail despite the gravity of the offense and the nature of the punishment he faces”), aff’d, State v. Arthur; 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980).
We draw three points from Duff Dexter, and the cases from other states: (1) in cases where the constitutional right does not apply, the presumption is switched so that the norm is incarceration and not release1; (2) the trial court’s discretion is extremely broad; and (3) the trial court must exercise its discretion after giving the defendant an opportunity to be heard. Each of those points supports affirmance in this case. The trial court held a hearing and exercised its discretion. Its rationale is not arbitrary. If its discretion is broad and release is reserved only for extraordinary cases, we must conclude that the decision is supported by the record.
It is appropriate to briefly address the trial court’s rationale. Conditions of release have become commonplace and are issued in every case to minimize the risk of flight and to protect the judicial process and the rights of participants, particularly the complaining witness, as well as the public. Nonmonetary conditions are widely endorsed nationally as the least restrictive method of assuring appearance and preventing the commission of further crimes. See II American Bar Ass’n, Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 10-1.3(c) (2d ed. 1980). Appropriate conditions “impose reasonable restrictions on the activities, movements, associations, and residences of the defendant” as well as prohibiting the defendant from “using intoxicating liq[459]*459uors or certain drugs.” Id. Standard 10-5.2(c), (d). The Legislature has recognized the importance of conditions of release by allowing revocation of bail for violation of conditions of release in certain circumstances. See 13 V.S.A. § 7575. When the need for conditions is viewed in light of the possible punishment of life imprisonment, it is entirely appropriate for the court to deny bail unless it is fully convinced that the defendant will abide by the conditions that would be imposed if defendant were released. The trial court was not convinced here.
Next defendant argues that the bail denial decision deprives him of substantive due process of law because the court did not find he was a risk of flight or a danger to the public. He derives these requirements from United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 741 (1987), where the United States Supreme Court upheld provisions of the federal Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) — which permits pretrial detention for certain offenses to prevent danger to the community — against a challenge that it violated the Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process.
We find Salerno to have only limited applicability in this case. Because it upholds the federal statute, there is no definitive ruling that any element of that statute is constitutionally required.2 More important, the federal statute is very clearly a preventive detention measure, and the due process discussion is tailored to that purpose and effect. Cases that have taken clear principles and limits from Salerno have similarly involved specific preventive detention statutes. See, e.g., Aime v. Commonwealth, 611 N.E.2d 204, 206 (Mass. 1993); Witt v. Moran, 572 A.2d 261, 262 (R.I. 1990). With these limits in mind, we derive three applicable due process requirements from Salerno: (1) bail cannot be denied in order to inflict pretrial punishment; (2) pretrial detention cannot be excessive in relation to the regula[460]*460tory goal, and (3) the interests served by the detention must be legitimate and compelling. 481 U.S. at 747, 749.
In applying these requirements to this case, it is important to understand what interests underlie the court’s action. The separate treatment of life imprisonment cases in Vermont’s constitution indicates that such crimes are treated “as a surrogate for a high risk of flight.”3 Sauve, 159 Vt. at 574, 621 A.2d at 1301. As applied to this case, a defendant who has a recent record of violating important conditions of release is an increased risk of flight when facing possible life imprisonment. There is also an increased risk of violence to the complainant and witnesses in this case. Given the importance of nonmonetary conditions of . release to the administration of criminal justice, a judge’s determination that a defendant will not abide by conditions of release implicates all functions of pretrial detention.
While denial of bail here is viewed by defendant as a form of preventive detention, there is no indication that this purpose entered the trial court’s decision. The fundamental distinction between preventive detention and detention for violation of conditions of release was recognized by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Mello v. Superior Court, 370 A.2d 1262, 1265 (R.1.1977). There, the court upheld an order revoking bail after the defendant had committed a second offense while on bail. The court found that the bail revocation did not involve preventive detention:
It has been argued that allowing a trial court to revoke release in this manner treads perilously close to the precipice of preventive detention. We have a different view of the terrain. . . . [Defendant] was not denied release on his second charge in order to protect the public. He was detained because he violated a reasonable condition of his original release.
[461]*461. . . The authority of the court to revoke bail in certain situations ought not to be construed as authority to exercise preventive detention. The former is a sanction for past acts, the latter a prophylactic for the future. We are concerned with the former.
Id.; see also People ex rel. Hemingway v. Elrod, 322 N.E.2d 837, 841 (Ill. 1975) (revocation of bail for violation of condition of release is not preventive detention); see generally State v. Ayala, 610 A.2d 1162, 1173-74 (Conn. 1992) (adopting Mello rule and collecting similar cases from other states). Although Mello dealt with a different form of action — that is, revocation of bail rather than denial — that difference in form is not significant in understanding the interests involved.
Returning to the Salerno requirements, we find nothing punitive in the trial court’s action. The trial judge made clear that the court was concerned with future compliance with conditions of release. It was not concerned with punishing defendant for past actions, only with whether defendant was an acceptable risk in view of his recent track record. Thus, the court considered defendant’s argument that he had “seen the light” and would comply in the future and specifically rejected it in denying bail.
Nor can-the court’s actions be considered excessive in light of the interests involved. In analyzing this factor in Salerno, the Supreme Court gave the most weight to the fact that preventive detention was limited “to the most serious of crimes.” 481 U.S. at 747. The class of cases for which there is no Vermont constitutional right to bail is even narrower, and this defendant faces possible life imprisonment.
The class of defendants is further narrowed here by the recent history of noncompliance with significant conditions of release. The court is not speculating about future compliance from a blank record.
Defendant reads into the Salerno language a specific command that the court relate its actions to the ultimate interests of risk of flight and preventive detention. Such a command would elevate form over substance and be inconsistent with our limited standard of review. Once the court determines that defendant cannot be trusted to comply with conditions of release, [462]*462the effect on risk of flight and other bail interests becomes obvious. On this point, we note that Congress has adopted a similar rationale for detention by creating a presumption that persons who have been convicted of offenses while on bail are dangerous; if unrebutted, this presumption allows for preventive detention with no specific finding of dangerousness. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The Bail Reform Act presumptions have been upheld as constitutional. See United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 387 (1st Cir. 1985); see generally Comment, When Preventive Detention Is (Still) Unconstitutional: The Invalidity of the Presumption in the 1981 Federal Bail Statute, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1091, 1120-22 (1988) (arguing that the presumption based on criminal activity while on bail is constitutional). The rationale for the presumption is that a “ ‘history of pretrial criminality is, absent mitigating information, a rational basis for concluding that a defendant poses a significant threat to community safety and that he cannot be trusted to conform to the requirements of the law while on release.’” United States v. Coyne, 800 F. Supp. 1018, 1020 (D. Mass. 1992) (quoting S. Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 19, reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 3202). At worst, the trial judge used a similar presumption here, presuming from multiple violations of conditions of release that no combination of conditions of release would ensure defendant’s presence at trial or the safety of the alleged victim and witnesses and the public. That presumption was unrebutted by defendant.
In response to the third Salerno requirement, we find the interests protected by this order to be legitimate and compelling. They are the traditional interests on which conditions of release are determined, magnified because of the severe penalty faced by defendant.
Finally, defendant claims that the denial of bail deprives him of procedural due process. In holding that the Bail Reform Act does not deny due process of law, the Supreme Court in Salerno itemized the procedural protections built into the Act: (1) right to counsel; (2) opportunity of the defendant to testify and present information; (3) opportunity to cross-examine opposing witnesses; (4) statutory factors governing the preventive detention decision-making process; (5) a requirement of findings of fact and a statement of reasons for the decision; and [463]*463(6) a requirement of proof by clear and convincing evidence. 481 U.S. at 751-52. Decisions following Salerno have interpreted all or most of these attributes of the federal law as minimum requirements of procedural due process. See Aime v. Commonwealth, 611 N.E.2d at 214; Witt v. Moran, 572 A.2d at 267. Because of the liberty interest involved, procedural requirements are necessary to ensure accurate decision making whether or not the Vermont constitutional right to bail applies. We agree with those courts that view most or all of the procedural protections of the federal law as necessary for the state scheme to comply with procedural due process.
Except for the standard of proof, the decision in this case meets the requirements of procedural due process in the context of the Vermont bail decision-making scheme. Beview in this Court provides the necessary check against unbridled discretion, and the decision in this case is based on findings and reasons. The court’s decision does not, however, specify the standard of proof applied by the trial judge. We do not believe that the absence of a statement of the standard of proof is grounds to reverse this decision. Defendant never raised the standard-of-proof issue in the trial court and never contested the underlying facts. See In re G.S., 153 Vt. 651, 652, 572 A.2d 1350, 1351 (1990) (failure to raise constitutional attack on standard of proof in trial court precludes review in this Court where Court cannot find that standard of proof had any effect on outcome of case). In fact, defendant’s counsel appeared to admit at least some of the violations of conditions of release. Defendant’s position in the trial court was that he now saw the error of his ways, had a new attitude and would abide by conditions of release in the future. In view of this position, the failure of the trial court to specify the standard of proof used was not plain error.
We are setting standards for the small group of serious crimes where the maximum punishment is life imprisonment and where the evidence against defendant is such that there is no constitutional right to bail. In determining the effect that actions of the defendant may have on the appropriateness of bail, we must keep in mind the severe punishment defendant is facing. See Salerno, 481 U.S. at 747 (denial of bail not an excessive response to problem of offenses committed while defendant [464]*464is on bail in part because denial of bail is limited to only “most serious of crimes”). In such a situation, the trial judge must have the discretion to deny bail to a defendant who is found to have committed serious, multiple and recent violations of bail conditions. That discretion was not abused here.
Affirmed.