Opinion ID: 2180125
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Chase Reaffirmed: State v. Wiggs

Text: Just three years after our holding in Chase, we decided Wiggs. There, the defendant was charged with breaking and entering, simple assault, and assault with a dangerous weapon, all while on probation for an earlier conviction. On the basis of those charges, the state prepared a Rule 32(f) notice and presented the defendant as a violator before the Superior Court. After hearing testimony, the hearing justice determined that the defendant was a violator on the grounds that his behavior on the night in question was not good. Notwithstanding that conclusion, however, the hearing justice inexplicably proffered an additional factual determination regarding Wiggs's involvement in the alleged breaking and entering, stating [t]here is not sufficient evidence, it's true, to prove even beyond a reasonable satisfaction standard that [the defendant] was present at the time the apartment was broken into and enter[e]d by the others[.] Wiggs, 635 A.2d at 274. Citing Chase, the defendant moved to dismiss the criminal charge of breaking and entering, maintaining that the hearing justice's factual findings foreclosed the issue of his criminal responsibility for that alleged offense. The motion justice denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, but we reversed. Relying on Chase, we determined that because the state had a full and fair opportunity to present evidence and call witnesses during Wiggs's probation-revocation hearing, the hearing justice's finding that the state had failed to establish that the defendant was present at the time of the breaking and entering constituted a valid final judgment barring any further relitigation of the issue. Wiggs, 635 A.2d at 276. Because the state had been afforded a full and fair hearing, we reasoned, [t]he defendant should not be penalized for the state's tactical decision not to present a full case on all counts at the probation-revocation hearing. Id.