Background
Nicia Elaine Campbell pleaded guilty to forgery in May 2022 and received probation requiring her to successfully complete the Harney County Treatment Court program by November 5, 2023. On October 9, 2023, the treatment court recommended terminating her from the program. Its termination summary cited a recent shoplifting citation, her difficulty progressing through the program’s five phases, and requirements she had not completed.
The state initiated revocation proceedings before Campbell’s probation expired. At the March 2024 hearing, the amended judgment and termination summary were the only evidence presented. Over Campbell’s hearsay and federal due-process confrontation objections, the trial court admitted the summary, found that she had not completed treatment court, revoked probation, and imposed 30 months in prison with credit for time served.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the show-cause motion and affidavit gave Campbell adequate notice that the state alleged she had violated probation by failing to complete treatment court within the required period. Because the revocation proceeding began before probation expired, the trial court retained jurisdiction afterward. The termination summary also supplied sufficient evidence under the preponderance standard: Campbell had reached only phase four of five and still had multiple program requirements outstanding when the completion deadline passed.
The court further held that admitting the termination summary without testimony from the treatment-court judge did not violate Campbell’s confrontation rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the summary was integral to proving the violation, it bore strong indicia of reliability as the treatment-court judge’s documentation of the referral decision. Campbell also received the summary well before the hearing and had ample opportunity to dispute whether she had completed the program. An incorrect reference to her underlying conviction did not affect the pertinent information or the referral decision.
Key Takeaways
- A show-cause filing adequately alleges a probation violation when it identifies the completion condition and gives notice that the probationer failed to satisfy it within the probationary period.
- Starting revocation proceedings before probation expires preserves the trial court’s jurisdiction even if the revocation hearing and formal program termination occur later.
- Reliable documentary evidence may be admitted at a probation-revocation hearing without its author’s testimony when the due-process balancing favors admission and the probationer had a meaningful opportunity to refute it.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes participation in treatment court from successful completion and confirms that unfinished program requirements at the probation deadline can support revocation. It also illustrates how Oregon courts balance confrontation interests against good cause in revocation proceedings, where ordinary evidentiary rules do not apply but federal due-process protections remain.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.