Idaho Supreme Court· 10/19/2007

State v. Rose

Citations

171 P.3d 253
144 Idaho 762
2007 Ida. LEXIS 194

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

observing that cases interpreting the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause define what confrontation is in the probation revocation context
rejecting argument that Crawford applies with equal force to a probationer’s due process right to confrontation
holding the same in regard to probation revocation proceedings
“Once a probation violation has been proven, the decision of whether to revoke probation is within the sound discretion of the court.”
“A motion to revoke probation is not a criminal prosecution. Consequently, the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, which grants to criminal defendants the right to confront adverse witnesses, does not apply to probationers.” (citations omitted)
\Other jurisdictions that have decided the question appear to be unanimous that Crawford does not change the due process standard for confrontation in a probation revocation hearing.\ (citing United States v. Williams, 443 F.3d 35, 45 (2d Cir.2006

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Eismajstn, Burdick, Jones, Trout

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

40 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.