A probationer in Middlesex County was summoned to court for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend and leaving the state without first notifying the probation department.
At his hearing the probationer testified on his own behalf–always a bad idea. While speaking to the court he admitted to destroying his girlfriend’s property and driving her car without a license.
Based on this testimony, his probation officer filed another probation violation notice. Ultimately the court found that the probationer did in fact violate his probation. He appealed the finding arguing that the second violation notice was barred by “civil claim preclusion” or res judicata.
The gist of his argument is that the probation department was required to set forth all its claims (which stemmed from the same series of events) in the original violation notice.
The Appeals Court rejected this argument.
The defendant argues that civil claim preclusion applies to probation violation proceedings and, therefore, probation is required to bring all possible related probation violations in one notice. We reject that proposition, which is at odds with our rehabilitative model of probation that favors administrative and informal resolution of violations whenever possible and considers a notice of violation to be a last resort.
The opinion goes on to say,
Extending civil claim preclusion to probation violation proceedings would undermine the procedures of the Superior Court, Boston Municipal Court, District Court, and Juvenile Court and interfere with the efforts of probation officers throughout the system to address problems informally and to avoid probation violation proceedings whenever possible. As civil claim preclusion does not apply to probation violation proceedings, defense counsel acted effectively in not raising that as a defense
The full text of the opinion is attached below.