State v. England

“As defendant acknowledges, we have previously held that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required in revocation proceedings—rather, "proof by a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient." State v. Fortier, 20 Ore. App. at 616.

Defendant appealed a judgment revoking his probation and imposing a 180-day jail sanction, arguing that the trial court erred by not requiring the state to prove the allegation of a new crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The State contended that the case was moot because the defendant had already served the jail sanction, and that the defendant's argument lacked merit. “As defendant acknowledges, we have previously held that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required in revocation proceedings—rather, "proof by a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient." State v. Fortier, 20 Ore. App. at 616. The Court found the case not moot, reasoning that defendant’s prior probation violation could affect future probation violations in related cases, presenting a collateral consequence that justified the appeal. The Court also found that the trial court did not err in applying a preponderance of the evidence standard at the revocation hearing. The Court reasoned that previous cases had established that probation revocation hearings, requiring proof by a preponderance of the evidence, were sufficient and that the trial court could revoke probation even if defendant was acquitted of the criminal charge underlying the revocation. The Court held that there was no reason to overrule this precedent, as it was not plainly wrong. Affirmed.