State v. Rael, 35,801

Anthony Rael’s probation was revoked after a hearing in which the victim’s prior inconsistent statements identifying Rael as the perpetrator were admitted and relied upon.
Rael appealed, arguing the district court erred by admitting the victim’s prior statements as substantive evidence and that relying on hearsay denied him due process.
At the revocation hearing the State presented multiple witnesses (two officers, the victim’s mother and uncle), a lapel video containing the victim’s statements, recorded jail calls, and live testimony from the victim.
The victim’s live testimony denied that Rael was the perpetrator but she admitted making prior statements identifying him and discussed a plan in recorded jail calls to get charges dropped.
The district court found the victim not credible and revoked probation; the Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior inconsistent statements at a probation revocation hearing	State: Rules of evidence do not apply to probation revocation; prior statements may be considered	Rael: Prior inconsistent statements were hearsay and should not be used as substantive proof to revoke probation	Court: Rules of evidence do not apply; district court permissibly relied on the statements and other evidence; no abuse of discretion
Due process / confrontation when decision rests on hearsay	State: Due process satisfied because the victim and other witnesses were produced and available for cross-examination	Rael: Reliance on hearsay and impeachment of the victim’s live denial deprived him of minimum due process	Held: Due process protections were met—the victim testified and other witnesses were available—so no Fourteenth Amendment violation

State v. Green, 341 P.3d 10 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (rules of evidence do not apply in probation revocation hearings)
State v. Guthrie, 257 P.3d 904 (N.M. 2011) (probation revocation requires minimum due process; district court credibility determinations are entitled to deference)
State v. Castillo, 290 P.3d 727 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (due process violation where testimonial evidence was introduced without producing the witness who actually performed or interpreted it)
State v. Moore, 782 P.2d 91 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (motions to amend docketing statement may be denied when issues are non-viable)
State v. Martinez, 775 P.2d 1321 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (standard of review: revocation of probation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Urioste, 52 P.3d 964 (N.M. 2002) (appellate courts defer to district court on factual findings and witness credibility)