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The case involves a juvenile (the "Child") whose probation was revoked after being discharged from a residential treatment program. The Child was on a home pass from the program when he went to a park and later appeared intoxicated, as observed by his mother and a juvenile probation officer. The Child's mental health therapist testified that the discharge was due to misconduct during the home pass.
Procedural History
- District Court of San Juan County: The Child's probation was revoked based on his termination from the residential treatment program due to misconduct.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Child): Argued that the revocation of probation was not supported by sufficient evidence, relying on State v. Erickson K., which requires firsthand knowledge to support probation revocation. The Child contended that the evidence of intoxication was insufficient, as the court did not allow testimony regarding a portable breath test result and did not find him guilty of consuming alcohol.
- Appellee (State): Asserted that the evidence, including testimony from the Child's mother, a juvenile probation officer, and the Child's mental health therapist, was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Child violated probation by being discharged from the treatment program due to misconduct.
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence, including firsthand knowledge, to support the revocation of the Child's probation?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the revocation of the Child's probation.
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Bustamante and Castillo JJ. concurring):
The Court distinguished this case from State v. Erickson K., where probation revocation was based solely on hearsay evidence. Here, the State presented testimony from multiple witnesses with firsthand knowledge, including the Child's mother, a juvenile probation officer, and the Child's mental health therapist. The therapist's testimony established that the Child was discharged from the treatment program due to misconduct during his home pass. The Court found that this evidence, combined with observations of the Child's apparent intoxication, was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Child violated probation. The Court clarified that Erickson K. does not require every witness to have firsthand knowledge of every fact but rather sufficient firsthand evidence to support the revocation. The probation revocation was upheld based on the Child's termination from the treatment program, regardless of the lack of a positive alcohol test result.