State v. Styles
| Citation | 166 Vt. 615,693 A.2d 734 |
| Decision Date | 01 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-234,96-234 |
| Parties | STATE of Vermont v. Arthur G. STYLES, III. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Before AMESTOY, C.J., and GIBSON, DOOLEY and MORSE, JJ.
Defendant Arthur Styles appeals a finding that he violated his conditions of probation and the resultant revocation of his probation. We vacate and remand.
On November 3, 1994, defendant pled nolo contendere to a charge of domestic assault in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 1042. He received a sentence of four to twelve months, all suspended except for thirty days, and probation with conditions. In a complaint dated January 29, 1996, the State alleged that defendant violated the following conditions:
8: You shall complete payment of your fine(s) of $17.50 surcharge to your probation officer on a schedule determined by your probation officer.
14: Defendant is to attend DAEP. Defendant is to attend DAY ONE. Defendant is to follow all Family Abuse Orders.
At a hearing on March 21, 1996, a police officer testified that on January 24, 1996 he responded to a call involving an alleged violation of a relief-from-abuse order. Over defense counsel's objections, the court allowed the police officer to testify concerning hearsay statements made by the complainant and another witness, and admitted affidavits by complainant and the other witness into evidence. Next, defendant's probation officer testified concerning defendant's attendance at DAEP and the Day One program, defendant's alleged violation of a restraining order, defendant's nonpayment of the $17.50 fine, and defendant's urinalysis tests. Based on this evidence, the trial court found that defendant had violated his conditions of probation and revoked his probation.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence in a probation revocation hearing without stating on the record its reasons for admitting the hearsay evidence and making a finding of good cause. In State v. Austin, 165 Vt. 389, ----, 685 A.2d 1076, 1081 (1996), we held that "in a probation revocation hearing, a trial court must make an explicit finding, and must state its reasons on the record, whether there is good cause for dispensing with the probationer's confrontation right and admitting hearsay into evidence." The trial court did not make explicit findings and did not state its reasons on the record for admitting hearsay...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lunsford v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc.
...(new rule will have retroactive application absent exigent circumstances requiring purely prospective application); State v. Styles, 166 Vt. 615, 616, 693 A.2d 734 (1997); Lakeside Ave. L.P. v. Cuyahoga County Bd. of Revision, 85 Ohio St.3d 125, 127, 707 N.E.2d 472 (1999). Some courts conti......
-
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.
...Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist., 826 S.W.2d 489, 515 (Tex.1992) ("Generally, judicial decisions apply retroactively."); State v. Styles, 166 Vt. 615, 616, 693 A.2d 734, 735 (1997) ("We have previously adopted the common law rule that a change in law will be given effect while a case is on direct......
-
BPI, Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...(“Our general principle is that we apply decisions involving changes of law in civil cases retroactively [.]”); State v. Styles, 166 Vt. 615, 693 A.2d 734, 735 (1997) (“We have previously adopted the common law rule that a change in law will be given effect while a case is on direct review,......
-
Dempsey v. Allstate Insurance Company
...¶26 Some state courts have welcomed Harper as being consistent with the court's own approach to retroactivity. See e.g., State v. Styles (Vt. 1997), 693 A.2d 734, 735. The more common approach, however, has been to decline Harper's invitation to rethink Chevron, and merely to note that Harp......