Overall, the framework that was established in Reyes was and remains sound. In the years that have ensued since Reyes issued, appellate courts in numerous other jurisdictions have addressed the use of hearsay in VOP hearings. In their own ways, those courts have sought to offer guidance to trial courts on when hearsay may be relied upon to support a VOP charge while balancing the rights of the defendant in such a proceeding. The starting premise, however, is that hearsay generally is admissible in VOP hearings. The devil is in the detail of avoiding trenching on the defendant’s confrontation rights.
With respect to state courts that consider the question, the overwhelming majority allow the admission of hearsay so long as the hearsay is determined to be reliable. See, e.g., State v. Stotts, 695 P.2d 1110, 1119-20 (Ariz. 1985); State v. Giovanni P., 110 A.3d 442, 447-48 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015); Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 441-42 (Ind. 2007); State v. Graham, 30 P.3d 310, 313 (Kan. 2001); Bailey v. State, 612 A.2d 288, 292-93 (Md. 1992); State v. Guthrie, 257 P.3d 904, 914-15 (N.M. 2011). The reliability of the evidence to support the VOP charge satisfies due process concerns in such states.
This portion of the holding begs the question: what factors make hearsay reliable or unreliable. Courts generally couch reliable in terms of witness demeanor. However, with hearsay, the declarant is not present. Thus, their testimonial demeanor cannot be assessed.