AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant-Appellant, Arthur Aragon, was on probation when allegations arose that he failed to complete a required program at Sobriety House and did not report to his probation officer for over a month. These allegations led to a revocation of his probation.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that his due process rights were violated because the San Juan County probation officer testified about the contents of an Albuquerque probation officer’s report without firsthand knowledge, particularly regarding his failure to complete the Sobriety House program and failure to report to his probation officer. The appellant contended that these determinations required subjective judgment that necessitated confrontation.
• Appellee: Maintained that the appellant's due process claim, even if preserved, did not warrant reversal. The appellee argued that the failure to report was uncontested and central to the revocation decision, and thus, confrontation was not required under the circumstances.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant-Appellant's due process right to confront witnesses was violated when a probation officer testified about the contents of another officer’s report without firsthand knowledge.
• Whether the district court had good cause to deny the right to confront the Albuquerque probation officer under the specific circumstances of this case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the order revoking Aragon's probation.

Reasons

• Per Michael E. Vigil, J. (Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and J. Miles Hanisee, Judge, concurring):
  The court assumed, without deciding, that the appellant properly preserved the issue for appeal and proceeded to address the merits of his arguments. The court was not persuaded by the appellant's arguments, citing the precedent set in State v. Guthrie, which established criteria for determining the necessity of confrontation in probation revocation hearings. The court found that the appellant's failure to report was uncontested and central to the revocation decision. It also noted that the appellant did not provide evidence to mitigate his failure to report, and that the failure to report was an objective, negative, and routine fact that did not necessitate confrontation. The court concluded that under the specific facts of this case, the district court had good cause for not requiring the appellant to cross-examine the Albuquerque probation officer, thereby affirming the revocation of probation.