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 was accused of violating the terms of his probation by engaging in domestic violence, consuming alcohol, and failing to complete intensive supervision programs. The alleged violations occurred on November 28, 2009, when the Defendant was reported to have punched his sister in the face while intoxicated. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts of the events, with some supporting the allegations and others denying them.
Procedural History
- District Court, June 25, 2009: The Defendant was incarcerated for 90 days for a prior probation violation involving battery of a household member.
- District Court, April 7, 2010: The Defendant’s probation was revoked based on violations reported to have occurred on November 28, 2009.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in finding a probation violation because the evidence did not support the conclusion that he had violated the terms of his probation. The Defendant emphasized conflicting witness testimony, with some witnesses stating he was not drinking and no altercation occurred.
- Appellee (State): Asserted that the evidence presented, including testimony from witnesses and the probation officer’s report, was sufficient to establish with reasonable certainty that the Defendant had violated the conditions of his probation.
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in finding that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation based on the evidence presented?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to revoke the Defendant’s probation.
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Wechsler and Castillo JJ. concurring):
The Court reviewed the district court’s decision to revoke probation under the abuse of discretion standard. It noted that the State was required to prove a probation violation with “reasonable certainty,” which is a lower burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented by the State, including testimony from witnesses and the probation officer’s report, was sufficient to support the district court’s conclusion that the Defendant violated the terms of his probation. The Court emphasized that it is the role of the fact-finder, in this case, the district court, to weigh conflicting evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to revoke the Defendant’s probation.