State v. M. Howard, 475 P.3d 392

In 2011 Howard pled guilty to felony aggravated assault (15-year commitment with 10 years suspended) and misdemeanor endangering the welfare of a child; he began supervised release in December 2015.
Authorities allege Howard failed to update his address on the Sex/Violent Offender Registry for ~8 months beginning October 2017.
In April 2018 an informant turned over a phone purportedly belonging to Howard; Detective Katie Peterson examined it and concluded it contained images she identified as child pornography. Howard admitted he had some images in his Google Photos account.
The county filed a revocation petition (May 21, 2018) alleging (1) failure to register and (2) committing sexual abuse of children; at the evidentiary revocation hearing (March 20, 2019) only Detective Peterson testified and the photos were not admitted into the record as contraband.
The District Court found by a preponderance that Howard committed a non-compliance violation (sexual abuse of children), revoked his suspended sentence, and resentenced him; Howard appealed. (Post-hearing, Howard was later charged and entered a plea resolving the registration charge.)

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a revocation based on a "new criminal offense" requires a criminal conviction	State: No conviction required; revocation uses civil preponderance standard and may rely on evidence presented at the revocation hearing	Howard: Statute’s use of "offense" implies revocation should follow a charge and conviction (or at least higher proof)	Court: Conviction not required; revocation is civil and may be based on conduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence
Whether the evidence at the revocation hearing was sufficient to show sexual abuse of children	State: Peterson’s detailed investigative testimony and Howard’s admissions supported a finding by a preponderance that images constituted child sexual abuse material	Howard: Photographs were not admitted; the court relied solely on Peterson’s opinion and could not assess whether images were artistic rather than pornographic	Court: Peterson’s testimony (age estimates, poses, access admissions, and comparison testimony) was sufficient under the preponderance standard; revocation affirmed

State v. Oropeza, 456 P.3d 1023 (discussing 2017 legislative bifurcation of compliance vs. non-compliance violations and revocation standards)
State v. Roberts, 233 P.3d 324 (probation revocation is civil in nature)
State v. Watts, 717 P.2d 24 (dismissal of later criminal charges does not negate a revocation based on the conduct)
State v. Pedersen, 80 P.3d 79 (rules of evidence do not strictly apply in revocation proceedings)
State v. Cook, 272 P.3d 50 (a single violation suffices to support revocation)
State v. Burke, 122 P.3d 427 (standard for abuse of discretion on sentencing/revocation)