State of Maine v. Cory D. Kibbe
2017 ME 231
| Me. | 2017Background
- In 2004 Cory D. Kibbe pleaded guilty to gross sexual assault (Class A) and unlawful sexual contact (Class C) and was sentenced with eight years of probation for the gross sexual assault.
- Kibbe served the unsuspended portion of his sentence and was released; probation purportedly began December 17, 2007, making an eight-year term presumptively expire December 2015.
- In 2017 the State moved to revoke Kibbe’s probation based on failures to report to his probation officer and being near a Waterville public school in August–October 2016.
- At the revocation hearing the State called only Kibbe’s probation officer, who could not definitively testify that Kibbe’s probation was still in effect on the alleged violation dates and lacked tolling/good-time records.
- The probation officer acknowledged prior partial revocations (440 days and six months) but could not confirm tolling dates or good-time credits that would extend the probation beyond December 2015; the State rested without documentary proof.
- The Superior Court revoked probation; the Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated that revocation, holding the State failed to prove by a preponderance that probation was in effect at the time of the alleged violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved Kibbe was on probation at alleged violation dates | State relied on probation officer testimony that Kibbe was observed and failed to report, and the officer’s belief that probation continued | Kibbe argued the probation officer had no records to show probation remained in effect and could not confirm tolling/good-time dates | State failed to meet its burden; revocation vacated |
| Burden of proof and evidence required for revocation | State must prove by a preponderance that probationary condition existed and was violated | Kibbe argued lack of proof that condition (probation) existed at alleged times defeats revocation | Court emphasized State’s burden; recommended State file documentary evidence in future; declined remand for another hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. James, 797 A.2d 732 (Me. 2002) (State bears burden to prove probation violation by a preponderance)
- State v. Palmer, 145 A.3d 561 (Me. 2016) (clear-error standard for appellate review of factual findings in revocation proceedings)
- State v. Begin, 120 A.3d 97 (Me. 2015) (an attorney’s statements are not evidence)