State v. Bastow

ORS 136.425(2) states that "[A] confession alone is not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant without some other proof that the crime has been committed." However, because a "probation revocation hearing occurs after convictions that result from criminal proceedings" ORS 136.425(2) is not applicable.

Defendant appealed a judgment revoking his probation.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court's decision to revoke his probation.  Defendant argued that the only evidence that he violated the terms of his probation was that he admitted to using methamphetamine on probation with a condition to not use or possess controlled substances. The state argues that ORS 136.425(2) does not apply here because it applies only to criminal proceedings, and not to probation revocation hearings. Under ORS 136.425(2), "[A] confession alone is not sufficient to warrant the conviction of the defendant without some other proof that the crime has been committed."  The Court held that ORS 136.425(2) is not applicable to probation revocation hearings emphasizing that the statute states "uncorroborated confession is only insufficient to support a conviction of a crime." ORS 136.425(2) (emphasis added).  Affirmed.