UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
HARVEY C. REGISTER, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the revocation of probation was justified, and affirmed the consequent commitment.
Appellant appealed his probation revocation and consequent commitment, primarily challenging the admission of hearsay testimony regarding his breach o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Due Process In Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The revocation of Harvey C. Register’s probation was justified, we think, and on his appeal from the consequent commitment, we affirm.
Chiefly, the grievance asserted by the appellant is the acceptance of certain hearsay testimony by the District Court in regard to his breach of the probationary terms. In this there was no error or infringement of Register’s rights, and there was ample evidence without it to , sustain the revocation. However, as the trial judge is quite aware, there can be injury if hearsay plays too great a role in the inquiry, and he will constantly be alert to the frequent untrustworthiness of such proof. Of course, the infractions admitted by the probationer may always be outlined for the Court in hearsay statements.
In the argument on appeal the question arose as to the adequacy of the notice to the probationer of the motion or request for revocation. The present order may not be disturbed on this ground, but it is suggested that always, whatever form the notice takes, a specification be included of the grounds upon which revocation will be sought.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Worcester v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 370 F.2d 713 (1st Cir. 1966)
-
United States v. Leevy, 371 F.2d 912 (4th Cir. 1967)