State v. Guthrie
150 N.M. 84
| N.M. | 2011Background
- In 2005 Guthrie pled guilty to three offenses and was placed on supervised probation with a court-ordered ninety-day residential treatment program.
- In 2006 the State filed a motion to revoke probation, alleging Guthrie failed to complete the treatment program.
- Chavez, Guthrie's probation officer, was unavailable for cross-examination, and Olivas, Chavez's supervisor, testified instead based on probation-file documents and a fax from the treatment center.
- Olivas had little personal knowledge about Guthrie, never met Guthrie, and had not spoken with the treatment center staff; his testimony relied on the file contents.
- The district court revoked Guthrie’s probation; the Court of Appeals reversed for failure to address Chavez’s absence and the reliability of the hearsay evidence.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court overruled Phillips, adopting a flexible good-cause framework and holding the district court could revoke based on reliable hearsay without live confrontation where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation right in probation revocation? | Guthrie relied on hearsay; confrontation required. | Confrontation not always necessary; good cause may excuse absence. | Adopted good-cause balancing; overruled Phillips; revocation upheld. |
| What governs 'good cause' for not allowing confrontation? | Phillips dictates focus on witness absence reasons. | Need for flexible, case-by-case utility of confrontation. | Implemented a spectrum-based, case-specific test balancing reliability, centrality, and the need for confrontation. |
| Application to Guthrie—was good cause shown? | Absent witness justification required for no confrontation. | Routine, objective evidence (treatment non-completion) were reliably established without confrontation. | Yes; Guthrie fell on the good-cause end; the district court's reliance on reliable hearsay supported revocation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (due process is flexible; basic probation revocation protections)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (six due-process components; confrontation allowed unless good cause exists)
- Vigil, 97 N.M. 749, 643 P.2d 618 (Ct. App. 1982) (probation confrontation when informant test lacks; early NM good-cause context)
- Gomez, 181 Cal.App.4th 1028, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (probation reports admissible where routine; live testimony not required)
- Wibbens, 243 P.3d 790 (Or. Ct. App. 2010) (confrontation required when eyewitness reliability is suspect)
- Bailey v. State, 612 A.2d 288 (Md. Ct. App. 1992) (reliability-based factors for hearsay in probation cases)
- Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 2007) (substantial-trustworthiness approach to hearsay in probation )
- Phillips, 138 N.M. 730, 126 P.3d 546 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 2006) (multifactor good-cause test; focus on witness absence)
- Guthrie, 145 N.M. 761, 204 P.3d 1271 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 2009) (probation revocation with hearsay; Court of Appeals balancing approach)