Opinion ID: 2313573
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Finding of Probation Violation

Text: The defendant's second argument on appeal is that the hearing justice erred in determining that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation with respect to the state's contention that he had been engaged in orchestrating a murder for hire plot. We have stated that, in a probation violation proceeding, the state need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an alleged probation violator committed a crime. State v. Bouffard, 945 A.2d 305, 313 (R.I.2008). Instead, the presiding judicial officer need only be `reasonably satisfied' that a defendant breached a condition of probation by failing to keep the peace or remain on good behavior. Id. ; see also McCarthy, 945 A.2d at 327; State v. Seamans, 935 A.2d 618, 623 (R.I.2007). The focus of a probation violation hearing is not on the defendant's guilt or innocence (as a matter of criminal law) with respect to the most recent crime with which he or she has been charged; rather, the focus is on whether or not the defendant's conduct on the day in question had been lacking in the    good behavior expected and required by his [or her] probationary status. State v. Brown, 915 A.2d 1279, 1282 (R.I.2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the instant case, the hearing justice, in accordance with what is expected at a probation violation proceeding, weighed the evidence and assessed the credibility of witnesses. See McCarthy, 945 A.2d at 328. She addressed defendant's entrapment argument, and she reasoned that Maloney certainly was not an unwary innocent [but rather]    a person of a criminal mind filled with rage over a wrong that he perceived was committed on him by [Mr.] Leonard. The hearing justice specifically found that defendant was not entrapped and that defendant himself had been the first person to raise the idea of assaulting or killing Mr. Leonard and that he wanted to hire someone to do so. Although she noted that defendant's plans to hurt or kill Mr. Leonard were certainly inchoate rather than a clos[ed]    deal, the hearing justice specifically pointed to: (1) defendant's meeting with a self-proclaimed hit man; (2) his provision of information to the purported hit man regarding a potential target; and (3) his discussing with both Mr. Usenia and the self-proclaimed hit man his desire to kill or hurt Mr. Leonard. She then ruled that those were all factors that justified her conclusion that she was reasonably satisfied the defendant is a violator   . Although defendant asserted in the hearing that his remarks to the purported hit man constituted mere boasting, the hearing justice disagreed; she stated: [D]efendant did considerable footwork in preparation for a possible contract on [Mr.] Leonard. After conducting our own review of the record, we are of the opinion that the hearing justice acted neither arbitrarily nor capriciously when she determined that the evidence addressed at the probation violation hearing with respect to the murder for hire scheme was sufficient to demonstrate that defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. We agree with the hearing justice that the facts presented by the state were sufficient to indicate that defendant had failed to keep the peace and remain on good behavior.