Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Probation Revocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals Court questions hearsay, notice and findings in probation‑violation appeal
Summary
In Camo v. Conpsion (25P723) the panel probed whether the probation‑revocation finding rested on substantially reliable hearsay (police reports), whether the defendant had notice of the restraining order, and whether written findings were adequate; counsel urged vacatur or remand.
The panel next heard argument in 25P723, Camo v. Conpsion, a challenge to a probation‑violation determination that relied heavily on police‑report hearsay.
Counsel for the defendant said six charges flowed from the conduct at issue and at least one resulting plea left collateral consequences on the defendant’s record. The principal legal dispute concerned whether the hearsay in the police report met the Durling factors for ‘‘substantial reliability’’ when it was the primary evidence for the violation, and whether the court’s checklist form and any scribbled entries on it sufficed as on‑the‑record findings.
The panel asked whether the police officer had direct knowledge or had reviewed the restraining order and whether the record contained proof the defendant had notice; counsel argued the police report’s reference to ‘‘a restraining order’’ did not prove the officer had seen the order or that the defendant had actual notice. The Commonwealth conceded notice was the biggest evidentiary hurdle and relied on the police report and references to corroborating material (security images, screenshots) to support its position, though those items were not admitted at the revocation hearing.
Counsel for the defendant pressed that when hearsay is the sole or principal evidence the judge must make explicit findings applying the Durling factors (the district court form alone, counsel argued, is often insufficient). The Commonwealth said Durling’s factors are the correct lens and that not every factor must be met for a finding of substantial reliability.
The panel also explored whether a later guilty plea to a related charge renders the reliability claim moot; counsel answered no, saying the VOP record remains and a vacated violation might affect collateral consequences. The court thanked counsel and submitted the case for decision. The panel recessed.
Why it matters: The appeal raises procedural protections in probation‑revocation proceedings—particularly the sufficiency of hearsay, the proof of notice of restraining orders, and the level of written findings trial judges must place on the record when revoking probation. A ruling could change the documentation judges must make when relying on police reports as primary evidence.
The court took the case as submitted and will issue an opinion later.
