neutral and detached hearing in Indiana

2025In Woods v. State, our Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1576 | September 19, 2025 Page 12 of 18 Indiana Supreme Court stated the following regarding the minimum requirements of due process provided to a probationer at a revocation hearing: The minimum requirements of due process that inure to a probationer at a revocation hearing include: (a) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (b) disclosure of the evidence against him; (c) an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; and (e) a neutral and detach

2017Such a hearing requires the evidence be presented in open court where the person in the program is “entitled to confrontation, cross-examination, and representation by counsel.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (f) (2015); see also Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144, 148 (Ind. 1992). (due process is satisfied if, during a revocation hearing, the defendant is given “written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body”), cert. denied,

2025In Woods v. State, our Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1576 | September 19, 2025 Page 12 of 18 Indiana Supreme Court stated the following regarding the minimum requirements of due process provided to a probationer at a revocation hearing: The minimum requirements of due process that inure to a probationer at a revocation hearing include: (a) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (b) disclosure of the evidence against him; (c) an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; and (e) a neutral and detach

2016The minimum requirements of due process provided to a probationer at a revocation hearing include: "(a) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (b) disclosure of the evidence against him; (c) an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; and (e) a neutral and detached hearing body.” Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind.2008). 10 .

2017They are entitled to certain due process rights, which include “written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross- examine witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body.” Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999).

2015Id. “[T]he due process requirements expressed by this court for probation revocations are also required when the trial court revokes a defendant’s placement in a community corrections program.” Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). [15] Here, Clements was entitled to (a) a written notice of the claimed violations, (b) disclosure of the evidence against him, (c) the opportunity to be heard in person and present witnesses and evidence, (d) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, (e) a neutral and detached hearing body, and (f) a written statement by the factfinder regarding t

2007Bell v. State, 695 N.E.2d 997, 998 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). 2 *1102 These protections' include “written notice of the claimed violation, disclosure of the evidence against him and the opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and a neutral and detached hearing body.” Id. (citing State v. Cass, 635 N.E.2d 225, 226 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citations omitted), trans. denied).

1998These protections include “written notice of the claimed violation, disclosure of the evidence against him and the opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and a neutral and detached hearing body.” State v. Cass, 635 N.E.2d 225, 226 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citations omitted), trans. denied.

2008These include written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body.”) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 922 , 113 S.Ct. 2373 , 124 L.Ed.2d 278 (1993).

2008These include written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body.”) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 922 , 113 S.Ct. 2373 , 124 L.Ed.2d 278 (1993).

2012Id. at 672 (citations omitted).

2010A probationer *80 at a revocation hearing is entitled to the following minimum requirements of due process: "(a) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (b) disclosure of the evidence against him; (c) an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; (d) the right to confront and eross-examine adverse witnesses; and (e) a neutral and detached hearing body." Cooper v. State, 917 N.E.2d 667, 672 (Ind.2009).

2008These include written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body.”) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 922 , 113 S.Ct. 2373 , 124 L.Ed.2d 278 (1993).

2008These include written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body.”) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 922 , 113 S.Ct. 2373 , 124 L.Ed.2d 278 (1993).

2017Id. [7] Eshelman claims that he was deprived of due process because the trial court was biased against him.

2017Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489 ).

2007Bell v. State, 695 N.E.2d 997, 998 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). 2 *1102 These protections' include “written notice of the claimed violation, disclosure of the evidence against him and the opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and a neutral and detached hearing body.” Id. (citing State v. Cass, 635 N.E.2d 225, 226 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citations omitted), trans. denied).

2007Bell v. State, 695 N.E.2d 997, 998 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). 2 *1102 These protections' include “written notice of the claimed violation, disclosure of the evidence against him and the opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and a neutral and detached hearing body.” Id. (citing State v. Cass, 635 N.E.2d 225, 226 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citations omitted), trans. denied).

2026Puckett v. State, 956 N.E.2d 1182, 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

2018Puckett v. State, 956 N.E.2d 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). [18] Kendrick’s right to due process was not violated.

2019Terrell v. State , 886 N.E.2d 98 , 100-01 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. [23] In Gagnon v. Scarpelli , 411 U.S. 778 , 782, 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 1760, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), the United States Supreme Court concluded that the same due process guarantees afforded in parole revocation hearings should be afforded during probation revocation proceedings.

2017See Terrell v. State, 886 N.E.2d 98, 100-01 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (noting minimum due process requirements for probation revocation hearings include the disclosure of evidence, the opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body), trans. denied.

2017Due process is satisfied if, during a revocation hearing, the defendant is given “‘written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body[.]’” Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144, 148 (Ind. 1992). [11] Here, Tanksley received written notice of the alleged violations in December 2016; Taylor notified the trial court of the violations on January 6, 2017; and Tanksley was afforded a hearing on January 23 and 30, 2017, wherein he

2011Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 955 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied.

2015Id. [10] In Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 441 (Ind. 2007), our supreme court adopted a “substantial trustworthiness” test for determining the admissibility of evidence during probation revocation proceedings.

2012Id.

2012Id. at 435 .

2012In Gosha, this Court determined that the due process rights for an individual in a Drug Court program were the same as those for an individual on probation: “‘written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body . . . .’” Gosha v. State, 931 N.E.2d 432, 435 (Ind. Ct. 10 App. 2010 ) (quoting Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)).

1999Because we conclude that the State failed to provide Long with written notice of the claimed probation violation, we address only this contention. “ ‘The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes procedural and substantive limits on the revocation of the conditional liberty created by probation.’ ” Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 269 (Ind.1995), reh. denied (quoting Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 610 , 105 S.Ct. 2254, 2257 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985)).

1999Because we conclude that the State failed to provide Long with written notice of the claimed probation violation, we address only this contention. “ ‘The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes procedural and substantive limits on the revocation of the conditional liberty created by probation.’ ” Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 269 (Ind.1995), reh. denied (quoting Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 610 , 105 S.Ct. 2254, 2257 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985)).

2018Id. (quoting Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind.1992)). [13] Given the distinction between formal criminal proceedings and probation revocation hearings, “courts have found it unnecessary to fully apply the exclusionary rule when dealing with probation revocation.” Dulin v. State, 169 Ind. App. 211, 219 , 346 N.E.2d 746, 751 (1976).

2018Id. (quoting Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind.1992)). [13] Given the distinction between formal criminal proceedings and probation revocation hearings, “courts have found it unnecessary to fully apply the exclusionary rule when dealing with probation revocation.” Dulin v. State, 169 Ind. App. 211, 219 , 346 N.E.2d 746, 751 (1976).

2017Wann v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1103, 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1701-CR-99 | July 7, 2017 Page 6 of 7 2013) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)).

2017See Isaac, 605 N.E.2d at 148 (due process is satisfied if, during a revocation hearing, the defendant is given “written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body”), cert. denied-see also Madden, 25 N.E.3d at 797 (any argument regarding due process denial based on alleged lack of hearing is negated by the fact a hearing was in fact provided).

2015Lightcap, 863 N.E.2d at 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Stromatt v. State, 686 N.E.2d 154, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

2015Pope v. State, 853 N.E.2d 970, 972-73 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)).

2015Lightcap, 863 N.E.2d at 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Stromatt v. State, 686 N.E.2d 154, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).