Bailor’s Sentencing Continued in Attempted Homicide Case

Robert Jeffery Bailor

CLEARFIELD – The sentencing for a man convicted of attempted homicide and other charges has been continued again.

In October, Robert Jeffery Bailor, 50, who is homeless, was found guilty but mentally ill of attempted homicide, two counts of aggravated assault, simple assault and terroristic threats after a two-day trial before President Judge Fredric J. Ammerman.

The charges stem from a stabbing incident in Hyde in August of 2020 when the victim who had just pulled into his driveway, got out of his car and Bailor “came running at him” with a knife saying that “don’t you ever [expletive] with my family”. He then stabbed him in the neck and abdomen, according to the affidavit.

The victim who was 76-years-old suffered seven wounds to his neck and abdomen, which required surgery.

During the trial, an expert testified that Bailor displayed active signs of schizophrenia with impaired decision making.

He continues to exhibit symptoms including delusions, which are consistent with all of his encounters, she stated. Her conclusion was that he should be considered insane and eligible for a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

In his closing arguments, District Attorney Ryan Sayers explained that Bailor, for some reason, thought that the victim had molested and hypnotized all the children when they lived in the same neighborhood while they were kids.

It took the jury only about 20 minutes to reach the verdicts.

The mentally ill verdict requires some special consideration before sentencing can be done and after the case was scheduled in December, it was continued to allow time for Bailor to have another psychiatric evaluation.

On Thursday, Sayers and defense attorney, Joshua Maines discussed this report, which they received that morning.

Sayers told Ammerman that there were “no surprises” in the report and determined Bailor was not an appropriate candidate for a state mental hospital, but should be in a mental health facility within the Department of Corrections until he is ready to be put into the general population.

Maines argued that the statute on sentencing says the person who did the report needs to testify to his findings and be available for cross-examination. He asked the judge for a few minutes to discuss this with Bailor since he had received the report that day.

Ammerman gave him time to speak with Bailor and when they returned, Maines asked for another continuance, not just to have the expert on hand to testify but to investigate whether the defense should have their own evaluation done.

Sayers disagreed with this due to the report already being done by “an independent third party.”

Ammerman agreed to continue sentencing because the evaluation will determine where Bailor serves his time, which “will impact him for years.”

At this point, the case is re-scheduled for April.

Exit mobile version