State v. Murchison, 367 N.C. 461

Defendant (Murchison) pled guilty to multiple offenses in 2011 and received suspended sentences with 60 months probation.
While on probation, reports alleged new violent conduct: an assault with a deadly weapon (Feb 2012) leading to a 90-day active term, and later allegations (June 2012) that he broke into his mother’s home, held family members in a closet with knives, and was indicted for first-degree burglary, kidnapping, and assault.
At the August 8, 2012 probation-revocation hearing, the probation officer testified over objection recounting the mother’s statements (hearsay) and introduced a court computer printout showing a Lee County indictment calendared that week.
The trial court found defendant willfully violated probation by committing subsequent offenses, revoked probation, and activated suspended sentences.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the revocation relied on incompetent hearsay; the State sought discretionary review to challenge that ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a probation revocation hearing may rely on hearsay evidence	Rules of evidence do not apply; trial court may consider hearsay in revocation proceedings	Revocation was based solely on inadmissible hearsay and thus was an abuse of discretion	Hearsay may be considered; trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting and relying on the evidence
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation	The totality of evidence (mother’s statements, indictment printout, prior violent conduct, officer’s safety concerns) reasonably supported revocation	The evidence was not competent to satisfy the judge that defendant willfully violated probation	Court affirmed that the trial court reasonably exercised discretion and reversed the Court of Appeals

State v. Duncan, 270 N.C. 241 (1967) (standard for proof in probation revocation hearings is what reasonably satisfies a judge’s sound discretion)
State v. Hewett, 270 N.C. 348 (1967) (probation-revocation is informal; decision reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (probationers have limited due process rights; revocation is not a full criminal prosecution)
State v. Carroll, 356 N.C. 526 (2002) (Rules of Evidence do not apply in sentencing; hearsay may be admitted if relevant and reliable)
State v. Thomas, 350 N.C. 315 (1999) (trial court has broad discretion to admit relevant evidence in sentencing-related proceedings)
State v. Maness, 363 N.C. 261 (2008) (defines abuse of discretion review)