Court Opinion

ID: 9751715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:54:59.745708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:33:07.093197
License: Public Domain

Morse, J.,
concurring and dissenting. I dissent from Fart I. Otherwise, I concur.
The Court holds that defendant was denied procedural due process because he was not permitted to “confront” a New Hampshire police officer, Christopher R. Gentes, whose affidavit placed defendant on March 3 at 9:43 p.m. in Claremont, N.H., in violation of the probation condition that he not be in New Hampshire without permission.
Officer Gentes’ affidavit read as follows:
1. I am an Officer assigned to the. Claremont Folice Fatrol Division.
*4032. The defendant, JAMES W AUSTIN DOB: 06/26/63, was stopped at 9:43 PM on March 3rd, 1995 in the City of Claremont New Hampshire while operating a 1988 Oldsmobile bearing Vermont registration BBY291 for a defective headlight,
3. The defendant produced a Vermont driver’s license and vehicle title to the 1988 Oldsmobile
4. The defendant is a convicted sex offender living in Vermont and is on probation in Vermont,
5. The Claremont Police Department received a request from Vermont Department of Corrections, Probation and Parole for any contact information regarding James Austin, attached is a copy of a Motor Vehicle Stop Slip pertaining to the stop of James Austin..
The “slip” attached was an “enforcement action slip” warning defendant that he needed to fix the defective headlight.
When this evidence was presented at the hearing, the only objection was that “[t]he witness is apparently beyond the subpoena power of the Court. We have no opportunity to confront the information. . . [w]ith no way of knowing whether there was even an affidavit form.”
The Court faults the trial court for not making a “finding” that the affidavit was reliable. I submit that what was not explicitly stated in the record is nevertheless obvious from the record. The State’s evidentiary offer was reasonable, and defendant’s objection was insufficient to raise a due process issue.
Defendant never denied his supposed whereabouts, and given the cryptic nature of his objection, the court’s summary overruling of it was correct. It would be incredible for defendant not to speak up if he was, in fact, somewhere other than New Hampshire at the time. Defendant had no privilege to remain silent on the issue. Neither a probation violation nor his presence in New Hampshire is a crime. His silence in the face of Officer Gentes’ affidavit does not require the State to produce Gentes as a “live” witness. The factual issue was not whether defendant had a defective headlight, and it seems obvious by defendant’s position at the hearing that he was not contesting his whereabouts; he was merely raising a technicality over the manner of proof.
The evidence reeked of reliability, defendant had no interest whatsoever in confronting Officer Gentes, and the State’s burden of *404producing the officer would have been a waste of time. In short, the evidentiary basis and “good cause” to overrule defendant’s objection needed no explanation.