State v. Walter Simpson, 16-283

Background

In 1985 Simpson was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and sentenced to 50 years (30 to serve, 20 suspended on probation).
On December 14, 2015, a woman (pseudonym "Valerie") alleged Simpson lured her to his basement, overpowered her, and sexually assaulted her; she called 911 and identified Simpson in a photo array the same day.
Police located a basement with two mattresses and linked the alias "Reggie" to Walter Simpson at the Diamond Hill Road address.
At a three-day Rule 32(f) probation-violation hearing in Feb. 2016, Valerie testified consistently; Simpson testified that intercourse was consensual and that she solicited him for drugs and sex.
The hearing justice credited Valerie, found Simpson violated probation (applying a fair preponderance standard), and executed 18 of 20 years of his suspended sentence; Simpson appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the hearing justice exceeded the scope of a probation hearing by effectively finding a new criminal assault occurred	State relied on Valerie’s credible testimony to prove probation breach	Simpson argued the judge improperly treated the hearing as a trial of first‑degree sexual assault	Court held no error: crediting Valerie’s testimony in a probation proceeding could describe the conduct as a sexual assault and supported revocation
Appropriate burden of proof at the probation hearing	State proceeded under reasonably satisfactory/fair preponderance standard	Simpson contended the judge applied a higher standard (preponderance) improperly	Court noted defendant did not object and conceded he was not challenging the standard; no reversible error
Whether executing 18 years of the suspended sentence was an abuse of discretion	State emphasized severity of original offense, nature of violation, and lack of rehabilitation	Simpson argued lengthy execution punished him for an untried criminal offense and was excessive	Court held sentence was within the hearing justice’s broad discretion given violent, repetitive conduct and poor rehabilitation prospects
Credibility and sufficiency of evidence to revoke probation	State argued evidence (victim testimony, 911 call, photo ID, basement photos) was overwhelming	Simpson argued his testimony offered an alternate, consensual account	Court deferred to the hearing justice’s credibility findings and concluded reasonably satisfactory/fair preponderance standard met

Key Cases Cited

State v. Simpson, 520 A.2d 1281 (R.I. 1987) (affirming Simpson’s original conviction)
State v. Prout, 116 A.3d 196 (R.I. 2015) (standard of proof and scope of review in probation‑violation hearings)
State v. Barrientos, 88 A.3d 1130 (R.I. 2014) (probation‑violation burden and credibility assessment by hearing justice)
State v. Raso, 80 A.3d 33 (R.I. 2013) (distinction between criminal trial burden and probation hearings)
State v. Beaudoin, 137 A.3d 726 (R.I. 2016) (deference to hearing justice on credibility in revocation hearings)
State v. Fairweather, 138 A.3d 822 (R.I. 2016) (hearing justice’s discretion to execute suspended sentence)
State v. McKinnon‑Conneally, 101 A.3d 875 (R.I. 2014) (scope of sentencing discretion on probation revocation)
State v. Brown, 140 A.3d 768 (R.I. 2016) (noting amendment to Rule 32(f) adopting fair preponderance standard)