The judge who set bail for the defendant in a recent fatal domestic violence shooting said the incident was a tragedy — but stopped short of saying that his bail decision could have prevented it.

On Nov. 13, Clark County Superior Court Judge John Fairgrieve set a new bail amount for Keland Hill, a man who had repeatedly violated a no-contact order his wife Tiffany Hill had against him. The prosecutor in the case, Lauren Boyd, had asked Fairgrieve to raise bail from the original $75,000 to $2 million, citing fears that Hill would kill his wife. Fairgrieve raised bail, but only to $250,000 rather than Boyd’s requested amount.

Hill posted bail and, days later, shot and killed his wife in an elementary school parking lot as their three children watched. Hill drove away and fatally shot himself a few minutes later.

Fairgrieve told The Oregonian/OregonLive he couldn’t comment on the specific case, but said judges have a different obligation than prosecutors.

“I certainly take into account the recommendation the prosecutor makes,” he said. “We’re governed by the Supreme Court rules in what to consider, and we have to go through the process.”

Fairgrieve said under Washington’s Rule 3.2, someone accused of a felony crime will be released on their own recognizance, unless the court finds that the defendant is likely to fail to appear for court dates or commit a violent crime.

He said to determine the likelihood of any of those things happening, the Supreme Court has set a series of factors that judges must consider. That includes the criminal history of the defendant, any past or present threats the defendant has made, whether the defendant has tried to intimidate the victim or witnesses and the mental condition of the defendant.

Keland Hill did not have a criminal record prior to the most recent case, but had been charged in September with fourth-degree assault of his wife. In November he was newly accused of violating the protective order, which led Boyd to ask for higher bail.

Affidavits showed that Keland Hill was arrested on Nov. 7 after showing up twice in the same day at places where his wife was. Officers found a GPS tracking device on Tiffany Hill’s car. Court documents also showed that Keland Hill tried to buy a gun in Multnomah County a few weeks after he was barred from doing so by the no-contact order. He was denied after a background check.

When Boyd appeared before Fairgrieve in court on Nov. 13 to ask him to raise bail, she presented new information from an assessment Tiffany Hill had filled out, showing that Hill believed there was a high risk her husband would kill her. Boyd’s statement shows that Keland Hill had continued to text Tiffany Hill throughout the time the no-contact order had been in place. In her assessment, Tiffany Hill said her husband had threatened to kill her, was violently jealous, had destroyed property, stalked and spied on her, and tried to control her daily activities.

“It’s hard to predict what a particular perpetrator will do in the future,” Fairgrieve said. “Some couples have a history of domestic violence with different severities. It can wax and wane.”

He said the “terrible” outcome of this case would cause him to go back over his own analysis of previous cases.

Fairgrieve said the Supreme Court doesn’t give specific guidance about setting bail amounts, but judges take several things into consideration, including the defendant’s financial situation and the threat they may pose to the public if released.

“In this situation, I took the evidence and made the best decision I could,” he said. “Of course, he was able to post bail, and a tragedy occurred.”

He said despite Hill’s repeated violation of the protection order, that process is still important for victims. Each subsequent violation of the order increases the sentencing requirement for defendants.

Fairgrieve wouldn’t speak to his specific bail decision in the case, but acknowledged that he had raised it a substantial amount.

“In my experience, that’s a high amount of bail for this type of case,” he said.

In an email to The Oregonian/OregonLive, Boyd said she believes the solution to such cases may not be to raise bail, but to deny abusers access to it if they violate certain laws, such as possession of a firearm.

“Laws surrounding bail need to change when it comes to dangerous domestic violence cases,” she said. “Trying to possess a firearm is a big indicator that the abuser is a threat to the victim’s life. If they are trying to buy a gun, they should not be given the opportunity to make bail.”

—Jayati Ramakrishnan; 503-221-4320; jramakrishnan@oregonian.com; @JRamakrishnanOR

Visit subscription.oregonlive.com/newsletters to get Oregonian/OregonLive journalism delivered to your email inbox.