317 P.3d 150
Mont.2014Background
- Graham Macker pled guilty to forgery and issuing bad checks and received two consecutive three‑year deferred sentences (six years total) with supervision by Adult Probation and Parole.
- Supervision conditions prohibited possession/consumption of intoxicants, including alcohol.
- Probation officer Paul Parrish learned Macker was treated for alcohol poisoning on Nov. 7, 2012; Macker admitted consuming a bottle of vodka that night.
- Parrish also relayed Macker’s mother’s statements that Macker drank heavily for three prior nights; no hospital records or other independent proof of alcohol use were produced; urine was not tested for alcohol.
- At the revocation hearing Parrish was the only witness; the district court found a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, revoked Macker’s suspended sentence, and committed him to DOC for six years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 46‑16‑215 (corroboration of extrajudicial confessions) applies to revocation hearings | State: revocation may rely on admissions; corroboration not required under revocation rules | Macker: § 46‑16‑215 requires independent corroboration before admitting extrajudicial admissions | Held: § 46‑16‑215 does not apply to revocation hearings; corroboration not required |
| Whether admission of the mother’s statements violated confrontation rights | State: Parrish was the witness and Macker could confront Parrish; hearsay rules do not apply in revocation hearings | Macker: admission of mother’s hearsay statements deprived him of the right to confront an adverse witness | Held: No due process violation; Macker could cross‑examine Parrish and evidentiary rules (including hearsay) do not apply in revocation proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (rule that conviction generally may not rest solely on uncorroborated confession)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due process framework for parole/probation revocation; not full criminal trial rights)
- United States v. Hilger, 728 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2013) (due process does not require corroboration of admissions in revocation hearings)
- State v. Baird, 334 Mont. 185 (Mont. 2006) (revocation hearings are civil proceedings; Rules of Evidence do not apply)