State v. Martin, 522 P.3d 841

Martin was on supervised probation with a no-contact condition after domestic-violence convictions; the victim called 9-1-1 reporting contact.
At the probation-revocation hearing the State could not locate the victim (she was unhoused) despite multiple efforts and sought to admit the 9‑1‑1 recording as evidence of contact.
Martin objected under the Fourteenth Amendment due-process right to confront adverse witnesses; the trial court applied a balancing test and admitted the recording, then revoked probation.
A divided Oregon Court of Appeals held that no balancing was required when evidence falls within a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception (e.g., excited utterance).
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review, rejected a categorical exception, applied the Johnson balancing factors, and concluded the State showed good cause to admit the 9‑1‑1 recording.

Issue	State's Argument	Martin's Argument	Held
Whether evidence covered by a "firmly rooted" hearsay exception is admissible in a probation-revocation hearing without balancing the probationer’s confrontation interest against the State’s good cause	No balancing required; firmly rooted hearsay is sufficiently reliable to satisfy due process	Johnson balancing required; categorical rule violates due process protections in revocation hearings	Rejected categorical rule; balancing required even for firmly rooted hearsay statements
Whether the State established good cause to admit the 9‑1‑1 excited-utterance recording without the victim present	Yes — investigators made reasonable efforts to locate an unhoused victim and the recording bears strong indicia of reliability	No — State should have done more or sought a continuance; Martin’s confrontation interest was significant	Held for State: reasonable efforts and the recording’s reliability outweigh Martin’s modest confrontation interest; admission did not violate due process

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (parole-revocation due-process requirements including right to confront absent good cause)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (extends Morrissey protections to probation revocation)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor test for what process due process requires)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Sixth Amendment confrontation applies to testimonial statements)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (9‑1‑1 emergency statements are generally nontestimonial)
White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1992) (historical reliability of spontaneous/excited-utterance exception)
State v. Johnson, 221 Or. App. 394 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (adopts multi-factor balancing test for good-cause denial of confrontation)
Valdivia v. Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2010) (9th Circuit holds balancing still required even for firmly rooted hearsay)