State v. English, 2011 R.I. LEXIS 97

Defendant Michael English pled nolo contendere in 1998 to multiple child-molestation offenses and related delinquency; he received prison time with suspended terms conditioned on probation and a no-contact order to M.B.
An active no-contact order against English remained in place for over a decade.
In Sept. 2009, M.B. reported contact with English, prompting a probation-violation notice under Rule 32(f).
A hearing in Nov. 2009 established sufficient evidence that English violated the no-contact order by engaging with M.B. in Aug. 2009.
The hearing justice found he violated the probation terms by keeping the peace and by knowingly violating the no-contact order, and sentenced him to five years on the suspended sentence.
English appealed, arguing the contact was coincidental and not a probation violation; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether one contact with the protected party suffices to violate the no-contact order	State argues evidence showed more than coincidence and violated order	English contends contact was coincidental and not a violation	Yes; contact was not merely coincidental and violated the order
Standard of review for probation-violation findings	State requires only reasonably satisfactory evidence	No additional defenses beyond credibility	Review upholds deferential standard; supports probation violation if reasonably satisfied
Whether Conti controls the outcome distinguishing coincidence from violation	State relies on Conti distinction where the contact was not incidental	Conti applies; this case is distinguishable	Conti distinguished; record supports violation due to purposeful contact
Whether the court properly weighed credibility and evidence in finding violation	State asserts credibility of witnesses supported violation	Defense challenges credibility and inferences	Hearing justice acted within his discretion; credibility weighed to support violation

State v. Christodal, 946 A.2d 811 (R.I.2008) (standard for probation-violation proof; 'reasonably satisfactory' evidence)
State v. Bouffard, 945 A.2d 305 (R.I.2008) (lower burden than beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954 (R.I.2005) (probation-violation review; weigh credibility)
State v. Rioux, 708 A.2d 895 (R.I.1998) (arb/ capricious standard of review)
State v. Jones, 969 A.2d 676 (R.I.2009) (state need only reasonably satisfy core elements)
State v. Conti, 672 A.2d 885 (R.I.1996) (coincidental contact insufficient to violate no-contact order)
State v. Brown, 821 A.2d 695 (R.I.2003) (motion to reconsider sentencing timing)