Facts: Petitioner Francis Regan’s probation was revoked by the Aberdeen Municipal Court on grounds that he had violated the condition of his probation requiring that he commit no criminal violations of the law after Regan was charged with, but ultimately acquitted of, assault and trespass. Regan appealed the revocation of his probation to the Superior Court for Grays Harbor County, asserting that his probation could not be revoked on grounds that he had committed a criminal violation of the law by committing assault and trespass as he had been acquitted of the charges. The superior court reversed the municipal court, ruling that Regan’s probation could only have been revoked if he had been found guilty of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The city of Aberdeen appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals, which reversed the superior court, holding that all that was required for the municipal court to revoke Regan’s probation was that it be reasonably satisfied that he had violated a condition of his probation. Regan appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Is a court required to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant committed a criminal offense in violation of their probation in order to revoke the probation?
Conclusion: Justice Fairhurst’s opinion for the Court affirmed the decision of the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that the language in Regan’s probation agreement referring to criminal violations of the law is not limited to criminal violations of the law that result in conviction and that therefore the municipal court could revoke Regan’s probation simply on the basis of its reasonable satisfaction that Regan had violated the law.
Docket No. 82476-2 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 36715-7)
Petitioner: Francis Regan
(Counsel: Eric J. Nielsen and Eric Bruce Koch)
Respondent: City of Aberdeen
(Counsel: Eric S. Nelson)
Briefs:
Argument: Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:00am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, September 30th, 2010
Prevailing Party: City of Aberdeen (Respondent)
Vote: 8-1
Citation: Pending
Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)
Madsen
Johnson
Alexander
(Concurs)
Sanders
(Dissent)
Chambers
Owens
Fairhurst
(Majority)
Johnson
Stephens
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.