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 Child-Appellant was on supervised juvenile probation following a no contest plea to a charge of criminal damage to property and subsequent probation violations. The State filed a petition to revoke his probation, alleging violations including involvement in an altercation with another student, receiving a long-term suspension from school for possession of a pocket knife on school grounds, failing to attend school without an unexcused absence, failing to maintain an acceptable behavior record, possessing weapons, and committing an act forbidden by law (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the Child-Appellant violated the conditions of his juvenile probation by engaging in an altercation, possessing a pocket knife on school grounds, and failing to meet other probation conditions such as attending school without unexcused absences and maintaining acceptable behavior (para 2).
• Child-Appellant: Contended that the court committed reversible error by allowing two witnesses to testify at the revocation hearing and argued that his juvenile probation was revoked without sufficient evidence (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court committed reversible error by allowing two witnesses to testify at the revocation hearing despite the State's allegedly vague and legally inadequate witness list.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the Child-Appellant's juvenile probation.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the order revoking the Child-Appellant's juvenile probation (para 11).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Stephen G. French authoring the memorandum opinion and Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, held that:
  The district court did not commit reversible error by allowing the testimony of the police officer and the assistant principal. The State's disclosure of the witnesses was deemed legally adequate as they were named in the police report, which was provided to the Child-Appellant via the case management system. The court found no bad faith or willful misconduct by the State and noted that the exclusion of witnesses is a severe sanction not to be imposed except in extreme cases (paras 3-6).
  The State adequately fulfilled its disclosure requirements under the circumstances of the case. The police report, which named the witnesses, was disclosed timely, and the Child-Appellant had access to it well before the hearing. The court concluded that any surprise by the testimony of the assistant principal and the police officer could not reasonably be ascribed to the form of the State’s witness disclosure (para 7).
  The evidence was sufficient to support the finding by the district court that the Child-Appellant violated the conditions of his probation. Although the State conceded that insufficient evidence existed to support a finding that the Child-Appellant violated his probation by carrying a deadly weapon on school grounds, the court found that he violated two other conditions of his probation. Since a single violation was sufficient for the district court to find that the Child-Appellant violated his probationary agreement, and the Child-Appellant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting those two findings of violation, the decision of the district court was affirmed (paras 9-10).