378 P.3d 599
Wyo.2016Background
- Robinson pled no contest to misdemeanor sexual battery and false imprisonment; the district court suspended consecutive one-year jail terms in favor of two years' supervised probation with conditions including employment verification, a sex-offender evaluation, completion of recommended treatment, and submission to polygraph testing.
- Robinson signed a detailed sex-offender probation agreement expressly requiring participation in evaluation, treatment, and polygraph testing and prior approval for employment changes.
- The State petitioned to revoke probation after Robinson allegedly failed to (1) verify employment, (2) submit to a polygraph after refusing to admit the underlying conduct to a therapist, and (3) enroll in sex-offender treatment; his probation officer, Perryman, averred these facts and testified at the adjudicative hearing.
- At the adjudicative phase the court found by a preponderance that Robinson willfully failed to provide employment proof and repeatedly failed to attend scheduled polygraph exams (three missed appointments, no contemporaneous medical documentation).
- Robinson later attended some treatment sessions and took a polygraph before disposition and orally stated he had admitted misconduct in treatment; the prosecutor disputed that assertion and the court found Robinson had misrepresented his admissions.
- The district court revoked probation and imposed the suspended sentences; the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Robinson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adjudicative phase finding of probation violation was an abuse of discretion | Court based revocation on Robinson's refusal to admit misconduct and on polygraph noncompliance; improper given no admission requirement | Robinson violated express probation terms: failed to take polygraph and failed to verify employment | Affirmed: court found preponderance proof Robinson failed to take polygraph and failed to verify employment; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether admission of hearsay (employer statement) was plain error | Hearsay from probation officer about employer was sole basis for employment violation; revocation cannot rest on hearsay alone | Hearsay was cumulative to officer's direct testimony about Robinson's failure to provide employment documentation; Rule 39 allows probative, trustworthy hearsay | No plain error: district court relied on non-hearsay testimony as well; second prong of plain-error test not met |
| Whether district court erred in dispositional phase by not reinstating probation because Robinson would not admit conduct | Court punished Robinson for refusing to admit misconduct and therefore should have considered reinstatement | Court reasonably concluded Robinson misrepresented having admitted conduct and demonstrated unsuitability for supervision | Affirmed: court did not clearly err in finding willful violations and denying further probation |
| Whether polygraph requirement violated self-incrimination (Von Behren argument) | Polygraph compulsion infringes Fifth Amendment where questions exceed charged conduct | Polygraph here was limited to assessment for treatment and was an express probation condition; Von Behren distinguishable | Not raised as reversible error; court distinguished Von Behren and upheld requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. State, 350 P.3d 742 (Wyo. 2015) (standard for revocation: adjudicatory preponderance and dispositional consideration of willfulness)
- Neidlinger v. State, 173 P.3d 376 (Wyo. 2007) (probation cannot be revoked for failure to admit conduct absent explicit probation condition)
- Johnson v. State, 6 P.3d 1261 (Wyo. 2000) (polygraph results not required to be truthful to satisfy testing condition)
- Mason v. State, 631 P.2d 1051 (Wyo. 1981) (due process and confrontation concerns in revocation hearings)
- Swackhammer v. State, 808 P.2d 219 (Wyo. 1991) (hearsay may not solely support revocation; require balancing before admission)
- Mapp v. State, 929 P.2d 1222 (Wyo. 1996) (reaffirmed rights and limits on hearsay in adjudicative stage)
- Edrington v. State, 185 P.3d 1264 (Wyo. 2008) (discusses discretionary nature of revocation and supervision suitability)
- United States v. Von Behren, 822 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2016) (compelled polygraph requiring answers beyond charged conduct can raise Fifth Amendment concerns)