State v. Jeffrey Murray

Syllabus

In these consolidated appeals, the defendant, Jeffrey Murray, appeals from both a Superior Court judgment adjudicating him a probation violator and a Superior Court order denying his motion to terminate imprisonment. Regarding the probation adjudication, defendant asserts that the hearing justice acted arbitrarily and capriciously in finding that defendant had violated the terms of his probation. He further argues that the case should be remanded for consideration under the since-enacted \fair preponderance of the evidence standard\ under Rule 32(f) of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. Regarding the denial of his motion to terminate imprisonment, defendant argues that the requirements of G.L. 1956 § 12-19-18(b)(5) were satisfied under the facts of this case and that, as such, the second hearing justice should have terminated his imprisonment. The Supreme Court concluded that the first hearing justice did not err in finding that the defendant had violated his probation, because the hearing justice reasonably found the complaining witness's testimony to be credible and corroborated by other witnesses and evidence in the case. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that the case should not be remanded for consideration under the newly-enacted standard of review under Rule 32(f) because the hearing justice found \beyond a reasonable doubt\ that defendant had violated his probation. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that § 12-19-18(b)(5) was not applicable to the facts of this case, because probable cause existed at the time of defendant's arrest for the underlying criminal charges. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment and the order of the Superior Court.