Opinion ID: 2180060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: This Court's review of a hearing justice's decision in a probation-violation proceeding is limited to considering whether the hearing justice acted arbitrarily or capriciously in finding a violation. State v. Rioux, 708 A.2d 895, 897 (R.I.1998); see also State v. Waite, 813 A.2d 982, 984 (R.I.2003); State v. Pagan, 793 A.2d 1046, 1046-47 (R.I.2002) (mem.). Additionally, [a]ssessing the credibility of a witness in a probation violation hearing is a function of the hearing justice, not this Court. Waite, 813 A.2d at 985 (citing State v. Hull, 754 A.2d 84, 86 (R.I.2000)). Furthermore, this Court has stated that: When a probation-violation inquiry turns on a determination of credibility,    and the hearing justice, after considering all the evidence, accepts one version of events for plausible reasons stated and rationally rejects another version, we can safely conclude that the hearing justice did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in finding that a probation violation has occurred. Rioux, 708 A.2d at 898 (citing State v. Gilroy, 688 A.2d 858, 859 (R.I.1997); State v. Sikhaolouanglath, 683 A.2d 376, 378 (R.I.1996)). It is well settled that the burden of proof in a probation-revocation hearing is considerably lower than in a criminal case. Pagan, 793 A.2d at 1047; Rioux, 708 A.2d at 897. In a probation-revocation hearing, instead of establishing proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the state is only required to prove to the reasonable satisfaction of the hearing justice that the defendant has violated the terms and conditions of the previously imposed probation. State v. Anderson, 705 A.2d 996, 997 (R.I.1997) (mem.); see also Rioux, 708 A.2d at 897. Moreover, [k]eeping the peace and remaining on good behavior are conditions of probation, and the sole purpose of a probation-revocation proceeding is for the trial justice to determine whether these conditions have been violated. Waite, 813 A.2d at 985; State v. Pena, 791 A.2d 484, 485 (R.I.2002) (mem.). Consequently, the reasonably satisfied standard    should be applied to whether defendant maintained the conditions of his probation and not to the issue of the defendant's guilt with respect to the new charges. Waite, 813 A.2d at 985.