State v. Decoteau

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed a probation-violation and probation-revocation proceeding in which the trial court admitted a discharge summary and hearsay testimony concerning the defendant’s removal from a residential treatment program. The court held that the hearsay lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and that the trial court failed to establish good cause for dispensing with the probationer’s confrontation rights. Because the hearsay was central to the finding that the violation was willful, the court found plain error, vacated the revocation, and remanded for a new hearing.

Holdings

1. Because defendant did not object when the hearsay testimony and discharge summary were offered, the objection was not preserved; however, plain-error review was appropriate because the claim implicated important constitutional rights and the validity of the probation-revocation proceeding.
2. Hearsay is not categorically inadmissible in a probation-revocation proceeding, but before admitting hearsay in lieu of live testimony the trial court must explicitly determine, and state on the record, whether good cause exists to dispense with the probationer’s confrontation right.
3. The discharge summary and the probation officer’s testimony about statements by Serenity House staff lacked sufficient indicia of reliability because they were uncorroborated, consisted primarily of subjective conclusions rather than objective facts, and lacked specific factual detail.
4. The erroneous admission of the hearsay was not harmless and constituted plain error because the evidence was critical to the disputed issue of whether defendant’s failure to complete treatment was willful and the district court relied on it in finding a probation violation and revoking probation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court plainly erred by admitting the Serenity House discharge summary and hearsay testimony concerning statements made by treatment staff.
2. Whether the hearsay evidence bore sufficient indicia of reliability and whether the court made the required finding of good cause for dispensing with defendant’s confrontation right.
3. Whether admission of the hearsay evidence was harmless or affected the finding that defendant’s probation violation was willful.

Disposition

vacated