Background
Sackett pleaded guilty to three property crimes across two cases and received a 36-month probation sentence. A condition of his probation required him to “[p]articipate in a substance abuse evaluation as directed by the supervising officer and follow the recommendations of the evaluator.” The trial court issued orders to show cause alleging that Sackett had “[f]ailed to participate in substance abuse evaluation and treatment” and, after a hearing, revoked his probation in both cases.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the probation revocation. The court held that under State v. Chapman, 345 Or App 9, 582 P3d 266 (2025), to “participate” in substance abuse evaluation and treatment requires only “some level of taking part, attending, or engaging”—not successful completion of a program.
The record showed that Sackett completed one substance abuse treatment program and later participated in (though failed to complete) a second round of treatment in the same program. Because he attended and engaged in treatment, he satisfied the probation condition requiring participation. The trial court therefore erred in finding that he failed to participate as alleged. The state conceded this error on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- “Participate” in court-ordered substance abuse treatment means attending and engaging in the program, not necessarily completing it.
- Courts cannot revoke probation based on failure to complete a treatment program when the probationer has actually participated in it.
- The distinction between non-participation (failing to attend or engage) and unsuccessful completion (trying but struggling) is legally significant for probation revocation purposes.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the standard for probation revocation based on failure to participate in substance abuse treatment. It prevents courts from conflating “participation” with “completion,” which could unfairly penalize probationers making genuine efforts to engage with treatment. By requiring only attendance and engagement rather than successful completion, the ruling encourages probationers to seek treatment and protects against revocation when they are making good-faith efforts despite difficulties.
The holding has broad implications for probation conditions involving treatment participation across substance abuse cases, ensuring that courts distinguish between probationers who are not trying and those who are trying but struggling. This aligns the law with the rehabilitative purposes of probation.