State v. Ross, 507 P.3d 545

In 2011 Talon Ross pleaded guilty to robbery, received a suspended sentence (3 years fixed + 7 indeterminate) and was placed on supervised probation with a condition forbidding any violation of law.
In November 2019 Ross was accused of two probation violations: petit theft (allegedly taking vape products and kratom from a shop) and injury to a child (two small children left the home and crossed a busy street unsupervised).
At the probation-evidentiary hearing, surveillance-reviewing Officer Brazle testified he saw Ross take items and that Ross admitted taking them; Ross later was acquitted of petit theft in a separate criminal jury trial (the acquittal judgment was admitted at the probation hearing).
CPS testimony established prior contact the day before the street-crossing incident; witnesses described the children found nearly unclothed and exposed to cold weather; Ross testified he had been asleep and there were other adults in the home.
The district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ross committed both petit theft and injury to a child, revoked probation, and imposed the original sentence; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Idaho Supreme Court granted review, affirmed the petit-theft finding but held the evidence insufficient to show the required willfulness for injury to a child and vacated the revocation, remanding for a new probation violation hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ross)	Held
Whether petit theft was proven by a preponderance despite a criminal acquittal	Probation hearings use a lower preponderance standard; credible officer testimony and Ross’s admission support violation; an acquittal in criminal trial does not bar a probation finding	Acquittal shows he did not steal; witnesses (store employees) testified he had permission; judgment of acquittal should preclude revocation on same charge	Held: petit theft may be found by preponderance; court deferred to credibility findings and upheld the petit-theft-based violation
Whether injury to a child (I.C. § 18-1501) was proven (willfulness element)	Prior CPS contact and the dangerousness of the children crossing the road support that Ross knowingly permitted a dangerous situation	No evidence Ross acted willfully; other adults were present; at most negligence; no proof who was responsible for supervision	Held: reversed as to injury to a child — record lacks substantial evidence Ross acted willfully; conviction for that allegation cannot support revocation
Remedy when one alleged violation lacks support	(State did not challenge remand)	Requested remand if any violation unsupported	Held: remand for a new probation violation hearing (cannot tell whether revocation would stand without the injury-to-child finding)

State v. Sanchez, 149 Idaho 102 (probation revocation: factual finding deferred to trial court; preponderance standard applies)
State v. Knutsen, 138 Idaho 918 (two-step probation revocation analysis and district court discretion)
State v. Rose, 144 Idaho 762 (probation decisions require individualized evaluation; lower burden than criminal trial)
State v. Kraly, 164 Idaho 67 (special relationship analysis in injury-to-child context)
State v. Gonzales, 158 Idaho 112 (definition of "willfully" requires knowledge of circumstances likely to result in harm)
State v. Morales, 146 Idaho 264 (upholding conviction where defendant knowingly permitted child to be placed in dangerous situation)
State v. Day, 154 Idaho 649 (discussing that acquittal in criminal trial does not necessarily preclude probation/parole revocation)