function hearing in Rhode Island

2013In conducting this task, we remain mindful that ―[a]ssessing the credibility of a witness in a probation violation hearing is a function of the hearing justice, not this Court.‖ Id. at 49 (quoting Waite, 813 A.2d at 985 ).

2013In conducting this task, we remain mindful that “[assessing the credibility of a witness in a probation violation hearing is a function of the hearing justice, not this Court.” Id. at 49 (quoting Waite, 813 A.2d at 985 ).

2012Moreover, “When a probation-violation inquiry turns on a determination of credibility, * * * and the hearing justice, after considering all the evidence, accepts one version of events for plausible reasons stated and rationally rejects another version, we can safely conclude that the hearing justice did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in finding that a probation violation has occurred.” State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954, 957 (R.I.2005) (quoting State v. Rioux, 708 A.2d 895, 898 (R.I.1998)).

2008Moreover, as we have previously elucidated: “When a probation-violation inquiry turns on a determination of credibility *311 * * * and the hearing justice, after considering all the evidence, accepts one version of events for plausible reasons stated and rationally rejects another version, we can safely conclude that the hearing justice did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in finding that a probation violation has occurred.” State v. Rioux, 708 A.2d 895, 898 (R.I.1998); see also Sylvia, 871 A.2d at 957 .

2012Moreover, “When a probation-violation inquiry turns on a determination of credibility, * * * and the hearing justice, after considering all the evidence, accepts one version of events for plausible reasons stated and rationally rejects another version, we can safely conclude that the hearing justice did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in finding that a probation violation has occurred.” State v. Sylvia, 871 A.2d 954, 957 (R.I.2005) (quoting State v. Rioux, 708 A.2d 895, 898 (R.I.1998)).

2008With respect to that assessment, this Court has previously stated that “[assessing the credibility of a witness in a probation violation hearing is a function of the hearing justice, not this Court.” Sylvia, 871 A.2d at 957 (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Waite, 813 A.2d 982, 985 (R.I.2003).

2005Additionally, “[assessing the credibility of a witness in a probation violation hearing is a function of the hearing justice, not this Court.” Waite, 813 A.2d at 985 (citing State v. Hull, 754 A.2d 84, 86 (R.I.2000)).

2003See State v. Hull, 754 A.2d 84, 86 (R.I.2000) (citing State v. Sparks, 667 A.2d 1250, 1251 (R.I.1996) (per curiam)).

2017The deference that we accord to the credibility assessments of the nisi prius court at a probation violation hearing “is premised upon our realization that, we lack the same vantage point as the presiding judge, and we are unable to assess the witness’ demeanor, tone of voice, and body language.” Washington, 42 A.3d at 1271 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2017And we are ever mindful that “[assessing the credibility of a witness in a probation violation hearing is a function of the hearing justice, not this Court.” State v. Gromkiewicz, 43 A.3d 45, 49 (R.I. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2011We “will not ‘second-guess’ supportable credibility assessments of a hearing justice in a probation-revocation hearing.” State v. Jones, 969 A.2d 676, 679 (R.I.2009) (quoting State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225, 1229 (R.I.2009)).

2011We “will not ‘second-guess’ supportable credibility assessments of a hearing justice in a probation-revocation hearing.” State v. Jones, 969 A.2d 676, 679 (R.I.2009) (quoting State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225, 1229 (R.I.2009)).

2007We note, however, that, unlike Gautier , defendant was a passenger and not in control of the vehicle, and we also note that the incident report prepared by Officer Kantorski states that defendant was arrested “without incident.” 3 Although credibility determinations are “uniquely the function of the hearing justice” at a probation-violation hearing, State v. Rivera, 873 A.2d 115, 118 (R.I.2005), in the present case, the hearing justice did not articulate his assessment of the witnesses’ credibility.

2007“It is well established that ‘[a]ssessing the credibility of a witness in a probation violation hearing is a function of the hearing justice, not this Court.’” State v. Summerour, 850 A.2d 948, 951 (R.I.2004) (quoting State v. Waite, 813 A.2d 982, 985 (R.I.2003)).

2007See Martone v. Lensink, 207 Conn. 296 , 541 A.2d 488, 492 (1988) (stating that the purpose of the ex parte provision in the Connecticut APA is “to preclude litigious facts reaching the deciding minds without getting into the record.”) (quoting Model State Administrative Procedure Act, 15 U.L.A. § 13 at 426 comment (1981)).

2007See Martone v. Lensink, 207 Conn. 296 , 541 A.2d 488, 492 (1988) (stating that the purpose of the ex parte provision in the Connecticut APA is “to preclude litigious facts reaching the deciding minds without getting into the record.”) (quoting Model State Administrative Procedure Act, 15 U.L.A. § 13 at 426 comment (1981)).

2005Furthermore, this Court has stated that: “When a probation-violation inquiry turns on a determination of credibility, * * * and the hearing justice, after considering all the evidence, accepts one version of events for plausible reasons stated and rationally rejects another version, we can safely conclude that the hearing justice did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in finding that a probation violation has occurred.” Rioux, 708 A.2d at 898 (citing State v. Gilroy, 688 A.2d 858 , 859 (R.I.1997); State v. Sikhaolouanglath, 683 A.2d 376, 378 (R.I. 1996)).

2003See State v. Hull, 754 A.2d 84, 86 (R.I.2000) (citing State v. Sparks, 667 A.2d 1250, 1251 (R.I.1996) (per curiam)).