State v. Dowty

In order to reverse, a judgment revoking probation is based on whether an error in the course of the revocation proceedings may have been “prejudicial,” as opposed to whether the error was “harmless” under constitutional standards. State v. Milnes, 256 Or App 701, 711, 301 P3d 966 (2013).

Defendant appealed from a judgment which revoked his probation. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements that he made to his probation officer on the basis that the exclusionary rule of Article 1, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution did not apply in a probation-revocation hearing. Defendant also assigned error to trial court’s ruling to revoke his probation based on his earlier stipulation to revocation upon his first nonfinancial violation of probation, rather than as an exercise of the court's discretion.  In order to reverse, a judgment revoking probation is based on whether an error in the course of the revocation proceedings may have been “prejudicial,” as opposed to whether the error was “harmless” under constitutional standards.  State v. Milnes, 256 Or App 701, 711, 301 P3d 966 (2013). The Court held that trial court's decision to admit Defendant's statements did not prejudice Defendant and therefore did not provide a basis for reversal. The Court further held that Defendant failed to preserve his second assignment of error. Affirmed.