Court Opinion

ID: 9796310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:55:02.736723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:55.611518
License: Public Domain

Justice COATS,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although the majority ultimately finds a due process violation in the probation revocation proceedings below, I believe it substantially misapprehends the nature and seope of a probationer's right to confront and eross-examine witnesses against him, as well as the scope of section 16-11-206(8), C.R.S. (2009), which affords probationers a fair opportunity to rebut hearsay evidence under certain circumstances. Significantly, I believe, this misapprehension leads the majority to articulate a rule permitting the unbridled use of hearsay evidence in revocation proceedings, at least where the proof of an additional crime is not involved and the hearsay declar-ants' names have not been withheld by the prosecution, that I consider to be irreconcilable with the applicable jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court. Because I believe that the Due Process Clause guarantees a probationer the right of confrontation in the absence of a finding of good cause to deprive him of that right and because I believe the statutory guarantee of a fair opportunity to rebut hearsay in this jurisdiction is limited by its own terms to the admission of evidence violating a constitutional exclusionary rule, I concur only in the majority's decision to order a new revocation hearing but not in its directions for the conduct of that hearing.
In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), the Supreme Court made clear that probation is not a privilege that can be revoked without compliance with due process of law. Although the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a eriminal prosecution does not apply to the revocation of probation, the Court enumerated certain minimum requirements of due process in this context, to include "the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the *418hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation )." Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593 (emphasis added). I consider this language to be a clear and unmistakable reference to the Sixth Amendment confrontation right, of which a defendant can be deprived, even in this context, only by a specific finding of good cause.
The Supreme Court's thinking about the Confrontation Clause has undergone considerable metamorphosis since Morrissey and Gagnon, but its limited applicability to probation revocation proceedings has never been overruled. See United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 567, 121 S.Ct. 1782, 149 L.Ed.2d 820 (2001) ("[Ilt is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents" (quoting State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997))). Rather than expressing a concern for the reliability of evidence in general, the Confrontation Clause is now understood to apply only to testimonial evidence, see Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 413-14, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007) and, when applica-bie, to require an actual opportunity to confront, see Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68-69, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). Despite Morrissey's expressed intention that the revocation process remain "flexible enough to consider evidence including letters, affidavits, and other material that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial," 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. 2598, and its failure to define or impose any particularly onerous limitations on a finding of "good cause," it is nevertheless indisputably the case that a probationer can (consistent with due process) be deprived of the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the de-clarant of testimonial evidence only upon a specific finding of good cause to do so.
Section 16-11-206(8) acknowledges that probation may be revoked for the commission of a crime not involving conduct specifically prohibited as a condition of that probation, as long as the probationer has been convicted in a separate criminal proceeding or the People prove its commission beyond a reasonable doubt. This heightened burden is not required as a matter of due process and apparently reflects a legislative appreciation that unlike the violation of an enumerated condition of probation, which need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, actual conviction of such an unspecified crime would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing in this legislative distinction, however, in any way justifies diminishing a probationer's constitutional right to confront and cross-examine a declarant of testimonial evidence that is relevant to establishing the violation of a specific condition of probation rather than an unspecified crime. The confrontation right described in Morrissey applies no less when revocation is permitted upon proof by a preponderance of evidence than when it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
To the extent the majority intends that the good cause requirement of Morrissey is automatically satisfied by notifying a probationer well in advance of the revocation hearing of the names of hearsay declarants and permitting the probationer to cross-examine the testifying witnesses lacking first-hand knowledge and present witnesses of his own, its holding flies in the face of the express language of Morrissey. Whatever justification may ultimately be held sufficient in any particular set of cireumstances, "good cause for not allowing confrontation" clearly implies something about the availability of the witness, not simply that other means of testing the reliability of the evidence may be considered adequate. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 55-56, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (right of confrontation guarantees a particular method of ensuring reliability rather than reliability itself). In any event, Morrissey demands a specific finding by the hearing officer, which was not made in this case. If anything, the majority's disclosure discussion addresses an additional due process requirement imposed by Morrissey and Gagnon, and there is no indication in those cases that complying with that requirement could serve as a substitute for the right of confrontation. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593.
To the extent the majority suggests, as argued by the defendant and apparently accepted by the intermediate appellate court, that section 16-11-206(8) actually imposes an additional or separate requirement that the *419defendant must be accorded a fair opportunity to rebut hearsay evidence, I believe such a suggestion can only result from a misreading of the statute. The single sentence upon which this construction is based expressly addresses the admission of evidence that would be excluded from a criminal trial because it was acquired in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. This provision was clearly added to the statute to emphasize that this jurisdiction would not countermand the Supreme Court's determination that constitutional exclusionary rules of evidence do not apply to probation revocation hearings but at the same time to ensure that any such evidence may nevertheless be admitted only if it has probative value and, if offered through hearsay testimony, as will often be the case, that the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut that testimony. This limited language in no way suggests a broad rule of discovery for probation revocation proceedings or any additional protection against the use of hearsay testimony generally.
¥imaily, [ am concerned by the majority's reference to "the prosecutor's decision to withhold the names of the declarants until shortly before trial." Maj. op. at 417. I believe the record supports, at most, the assertion that the probation department had copies of the subject letters in its file for several weeks before the hearing and that they were never affirmatively brought to the attention of the defendant or his attorney until the hearing. I would reject any requirement, whether the majority considers it to be based on constitution or statute, that in addition to, or as an integral part of, Morris-sey's required finding of good cause, the prosecuting officer must affirmatively notify the probationer, sometime well before the hearing, of the names of anyone whose hearsay the prosecution intends to offer.
Because I agree that the district court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction over the probationer's conviction or sentence and that it cannot be determined that the district court would have resentenced the defendant as it did but for erroneously depriving him of his right of confrontation, I would affirm the court of appeals remand order.
I therefore concur in part and dissent in part.