Opinion ID: 2735430
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: ¶1 This case presents two related issues: (1) must the prosecution provide proof of a conviction to establish that a defendant failed to comply with a plea in abeyance condition LAYTON CITY v. STEVENSON Opinion of the Court prohibiting any further violations of law;1 and (2) what standard of proof must the prosecution meet in order to establish that a defendant failed to comply with a condition in a plea in abeyance agreement. The court of appeals reached only the first issue, holding that the prosecution could show that the defendant failed to comply with the condition through ―evidence of misconduct other than a conviction.‖2 ¶2 As to the first issue, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals and hold that the prosecution need not provide proof of a conviction to establish that a defendant failed to comply with a ―no violations of law‖ condition. Neither the plain language of the condition nor the plea in abeyance statute requires that the prosecution provide evidence of a subsequent conviction to establish that the defendant violated the law. And as to the second issue, we conclude that the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant failed to comply with a plea in abeyance condition. This preponderance standard is applicable in settings similar to a plea in abeyance evidentiary hearing, most notably a probation violation hearing. Moreover, a defendant‘s right to be presumed innocent is inapplicable in a plea in abeyance evidentiary hearing because at such a hearing the prosecution does not attempt to prove the defendant is guilty of a crime but instead seeks only to enforce the contractual terms of the plea in abeyance agreement. ¶3 Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals and remand the case to the district court to determine whether the prosecution can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant failed to substantially comply with the condition in his plea in abeyance agreement that he commit ―no violations of law.‖ The district court may exercise its discretion in making this determination by either holding an evidentiary hearing or relying on the existing record.