State v. Trillo, 35,551

Defendant Ronnie Trillo appealed the district court’s revocation of his probation after expulsion from the Good Shepherd program.
At the revocation hearing, the State relied on hearsay evidence that Trillo was expelled for criminal misconduct; that evidence implicated Confrontation Clause concerns.
Trillo testified he did not willfully violate probation and that his removal from the program was for reasons beyond his control; he later obtained admission to an alternative program.
The Court of Appeals issued a proposed summary disposition suggesting reversal because the State’s proof of willfulness rested on inadmissible hearsay; the State conceded the Confrontation Clause issue.
The State argued two alternate inferences: (1) Trillo’s admissions of having “confrontations” implied responsibility for expulsion; and (2) Trillo’s alleged failure to immediately secure another program showed willfulness. The court rejected both as unsupported by the record.

Issue	State's Argument	Trillo's Argument	Held
Whether revocation of probation was supported by admissible evidence of a willful violation	Hearsay and indirect inferences (confrontations; failure to immediately re-enroll) support willfulness	Expulsion was not willful; termination was beyond his control and he later entered an alternative program	Reversed: State’s evidence was inadmissible or insufficient to prove willfulness

State v. Martinez, 108 N.M. 604, 775 P.2d 1321 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (probation revocation improper where noncompliance was not willful)
In re Gabriel M., 132 N.M. 124, 45 P.3d 64 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) (trial court may disbelieve defendant, but disbelief cannot substitute for affirmative proof of the State’s case)
State v. Slade, 331 P.3d 930 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (an inference must be linked to a fact in evidence)
Bowman v. Cty. of Los Alamos, 102 N.M. 660, 699 P.2d 133 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985) (an inference must be a logical deduction from proven facts; guesswork is not permitted)