State v. Martin

“A parolee must have an opportunity to be heard and to show . . . if he did [violate parole conditions], that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488 (1972).

Defendant requested review of trial court’s revocation of parole. Defendant argued that the trial court’s admission of a 9-1-1 call was a violation of his Due Process rights because he was denied the opportunity to confront an adverse witness at the hearing. The State argued that the 9-1-1 call was admissible under a hearsay evidentiary exception, and even if the call should not be admitted, the State had good cause for not producing the adverse witness. “A parolee must have an opportunity to be heard and to show . . . if he did [violate parole conditions], that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 488 (1972). The Court reasoned that there is both an evidentiary and a discretionary piece in a parole revocation determination. The Court reasoned that even with strong, admissible evidence, the State must provide good cause for denying confrontation in order to conform with procedural due process. The Court considered four balancing factors to show good cause and found that the factors weighed in favor of the State. The Court concluded that the admission of hearsay evidence and denial of witness confrontation did not violate Probationer’s Fourteenth Amendment rights. Affirmed.