Opinion ID: 2356132
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The defendant contends that [t]he state failed to present credible evidence of a probation violation and that the hearing justice acted unreasonably and arbitrarily in finding that a probation violation occurred. We disagree. After reviewing the entire record, it is clear to us that the hearing justice did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when he determined that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation. As this Court has repeatedly stated, the state does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an alleged probation violator committed a crime; the state need only reasonably satisfy the hearing justice that a defendant breached a condition of probation by failing to keep the peace or remain on good behavior. See, e.g., State v. McCarthy, 945 A.2d 318, 326 (R.I.2008); Bouffard, 945 A.2d at 310; State v. Seamans, 935 A.2d 618, 623 (R.I.2007). In the instant case, the hearing justice weighed the evidence and assessed the credibility of each of the witnesses, as is required. In his assessment of that evidence, the hearing justice, while recognizing that defendant was subjected to hateful, inappropriate, [and] perhaps even illegal conduct by the group at the park, specifically found that neither Ms. LaBonte nor Mr. Gonsalves was an aggressor. The hearing justice went on to conclude that defendant was, in fact, the aggressor when he approached Ms. LaBonte and Mr. Gonsalves after the group had dispersed. Moreover, the mutually corroborative testimony of Ms. LaBonte and Mr. Gonsalves was uncontroverted; in other words, the hearing justice did not have to accept one version of events over another since the testimony of the two witnesses was substantially similar and no other version of the events was testified to during the hearing. After his review and assessment of the evidence, the hearing justice stated: [T]he credible testimony which I found was presented by the State, more than reasonably satisfies this [c]ourt that the defendant is a violator. We conclude that the finding of the hearing justice that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation was amply supported by the testimony of the witnesses and that he did not err in making such a determination.