Title: State v. Decoteau

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Decoteau  (2006-228)

2007 VT 94

[Filed 31-Aug-2007]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 2007 VT 94

                                No. 2006-228


  State of Vermont                            Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
       v.                                     District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 1, Windsor Circuit

  Richard Decoteau                            March Term, 2007


  Theresa S. DiMauro, J.

  Eric M. Lo_pez, Windsor County Deputy State's Attorney, White River
  Junction, for  Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Matthew F. Valerio, Defender General, Anna Saxman, Deputy Defender General
  and Josh O'Hara, Legal Intern, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶ 1.   JOHNSON, J.   Defendant appeals a violation of probation and
  subsequent probation revocation.  On appeal, defendant argues that the
  district court: (1) erred in admitting a discharge summary and hearsay
  testimony at the probation revocation hearing; (2) abused its discretion in
  finding that the probation violation was willful; and (3) violated
  defendant's Fourteenth Amendment due-process right to confront adverse
  witnesses.  We conclude that the trial court committed plain error in
  admitting the discharge summary and hearsay testimony; thus, we vacate and
  remand for a new hearing.
   
       ¶ 2.   On July 5, 2005, defendant was arraigned for violation of an
  abuse prevention order.  Subsequently, defendant was arraigned on
  additional charges, including disorderly conduct and violations of
  conditions of release.  Defendant entered several plea agreements to
  resolve these charges.  Most recently, defendant entered a global plea
  agreement in February 2006.  Pursuant to this agreement, he pleaded guilty
  to a violation of probation and was released on probation with several
  conditions, including that he attend, participate in, and complete a
  residential treatment program to the satisfaction of his probation officer. 
  On March 7, 2006, defendant entered a residential treatment facility called
  Serenity House.  Ten days later, Serenity House staff contacted defendant's
  probation officer to inform him that they were discharging defendant from
  treatment for inappropriate language and threatening behavior.

       ¶ 3.   On March 20, 2006, defendant was arraigned on his
  probation-violation charge and held without bail.  The court held a merits
  hearing on the probation-violation charge on May 17, 2006.  At the hearing,
  the State questioned defendant's probation officer regarding defendant's
  dismissal from Serenity House.  Defendant's probation officer recounted
  that his overall impression from conversations he had with Serenity House
  staff, in particular defendant's caseworker, was that defendant's attitude
  and behavior had been counterproductive to treatment.  Defendant's
  probation officer stated that defendant's caseworker told him that staff
  reminded defendant on a daily basis to watch his attitude.  Defendant's
  probation officer offered no dates or specifics concerning these
  conversations, but testified that the caseworker had spoken to defendant a
  couple of times, as had other staff members.  Defendant did not object to
  the admission of this testimony.
   
       ¶ 4.   The State also introduced, without objection, the discharge
  summary from Serenity House.  The discharge summary explained that, while
  in treatment, defendant "displayed intimidating behavior and made several
  derogatory remarks to female clients."  In addition, the attached incident
  report explained that defendant was discharged for "violating program
  rules, such as using inappropriate language and threatening behavior."  The
  report also commented that defendant exhibited a "general failure to follow
  clear cut staff directives."  The report contained no specifics about
  conversations that staff had with defendant and the progress notes
  contained no entries of particular instances when defendant violated
  program rules.

       ¶ 5.   Defendant testified at the hearing and recounted his version of
  events leading up to his discharge from Serenity House.  Although he
  acknowledged three instances where his behavior may have been construed as
  inappropriate or threatening, he maintained that he had not threatened
  anyone and that Serenity House staff had warned him about his behavior on
  only one occasion prior to discharge.  Defendant explained that he felt
  another resident had falsely accused him of threatening behavior in order
  to have defendant removed from the program.  The resident's roommate
  testified that he overheard the conversation between defendant and the
  resident in which defendant allegedly threatened the resident.  Although
  the roommate could not remember exactly what was said, he testified that
  there were no threatening comments and that the exchange seemed civil.

       ¶ 6.   At the close of the evidence, defendant objected to the
  admission of the discharge summary and his probation officer's testimony
  regarding what his caseworker had relayed about defendant's behavior at
  Serenity House.  Defendant's counsel explained that she did not object
  sooner because she thought the caseworker would testify and thus be
  available for cross-examination.  Without his live testimony, defendant
  argued that admission of the caseworker's statements through defendant's
  probation officer's testimony violated defendant's  right to confront
  adverse witnesses.  
   
       ¶ 7.   In response, the court noted that defendant did not object at
  the time the evidence was introduced.  Nonetheless, the court considered
  the objection and held that the disputed evidence was admissible.  The
  court noted that hearsay can be admitted at a probation-revocation
  proceeding if it bears indicia of reliability.  The court concluded that
  the discharge summary was reliable because it was the type of information a
  probation officer regularly relies on to make decisions.  Further, the
  court reasoned that because the probation officer had direct communication
  with defendant's caseworker, who had the most knowledge about defendant's
  behavior, the content of these conversations was also reliable.  Addressing
  the merits, the court found that defendant knew he was required to complete
  a treatment program and that he did not complete this program.  Further,
  the court found that defendant engaged in a pattern of disrespectful
  behavior, which he failed to correct after staff repeatedly spoke with him. 
  Thus, the court rejected defendant's argument that the violation was not
  willful and therefore did not amount to a violation of probation.  Based on
  this violation, the court revoked probation and imposed the underlying
  sentence.  This appeal followed.
   
       ¶ 8.   In a probation revocation proceeding, the State has the burden
  of establishing that a probation violation occurred by a preponderance of
  the evidence.  State v. Klunder, 2005 VT 130, ¶ 7, 179 Vt. 563,