This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant, while on probation for two fourth-degree felonies related to contributing to the delinquency of minors, was alleged to have violated the terms of his probation. The allegations included being a passenger in a car driven by a fourteen-year-old girl, possessing a bottle of malt liquor, and appearing intoxicated at a mandatory counseling session.
Procedural History
- District Court, May 31, 2005: The Defendant pleaded guilty to two fourth-degree felonies for contributing to the delinquency of minors. His sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for three years.
- District Court, January 18, 2007: The court revoked the Defendant’s probation based on violations of its terms, including being in a car with a minor and possessing alcohol.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court violated his due process rights by relying on hearsay testimony from his probation officer regarding the contents of a police report. He also contended that the decision in State v. Phillips required the reversal of the probation revocation.
- Appellee (State): Asserted that the Defendant failed to preserve his argument for appellate review because he conceded to the probation officer’s testimony about the police report and did not object further during the hearing.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant’s due process rights were violated when the district court relied on hearsay testimony to revoke his probation.
- Whether the district court erred by not requiring a showing of good cause for the absence of the police officer who prepared the report, as required by State v. Phillips.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to revoke the Defendant’s probation.
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Fry CJ. and Bustamante J. concurring):
The Court held that the Defendant failed to adequately preserve his argument regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence. Although the Defendant initially objected to the probation officer’s testimony about the police report, he later conceded to its admission without further objection. This concession rendered the availability of the police officer who prepared the report irrelevant, and the State was not required to show good cause for the officer’s absence. The Court distinguished the case from State v. Phillips, where the defendant had properly preserved the issue and the hearsay evidence was the sole basis for revocation. Here, the Defendant’s probation violations were supported by other evidence, and the district court’s decision was upheld.