defendant has committed violation in Rhode Island

2012“To determine whether the defendant has committed a violation, the hearing justice ‘weighs the evidence and assesses the credibility of the witnesses.’ ” English, 21 A.3d at 407 (quoting State v. Pena, 791 A.2d 484, 485 (R.I.2002) (mem.)).

2011To determine whether the defendant has committed' a violation, the hearing justice “weighs the evidence and assesses the credibility of the witnesses.” State v. Pena, 791 A.2d 484, 485 (R.I.2002) (mem.).

2014“In reviewing the hearing justice’s determination, ‘[t]his Court gives the trial justice’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses great deference.’” Id. (quoting English, 21 A.3d at 407 ). “[T]his Court will not ‘second-guess’ supportable credibility assessments of a hearing justice in a probation-revocation hearing[.]” Id. (quoting State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225, 1229 (R.I.2009)). “[I]nstead ‘[our] review of a hearing justice’s decision in a probation-violation proceeding is limited to considering whether the hearing justice acted arbitrarily or capriciously in finding a violation.’ ” Id

2014“In reviewing the hearing justice’s determination, ‘[t]his Court gives the trial justice’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses great deference.’” Id. (quoting English, 21 A.3d at 407 ). “[T]his Court will not ‘second-guess’ supportable credibility assessments of a hearing justice in a probation-revocation hearing[.]” Id. (quoting State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225, 1229 (R.I.2009)). “[I]nstead ‘[our] review of a hearing justice’s decision in a probation-violation proceeding is limited to considering whether the hearing justice acted arbitrarily or capriciously in finding a violation.’ ” Id

2014“To determine whether the defendant has committed a violation, the hearing justice weighs the evidence and assesses the credibility of the witnesses.” Ford, 56 A.3d at 469 (quoting English, 21 A.3d at 407 ).

2012In determining whether or not a defendant has committed a violation of his or her probation, "the hearing justice is charged with weighing the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses." Christodal, 946 A.2d at 816 ; see also State v. English, 21 A.3d 403, 407 (R.I.2011); State v. Gauthier, 15 A.3d 1004, 1007 (R.I. 2011).

2012In determining whether or not a defendant has committed a violation of his or her probation, “the hearing justice is charged with weighing the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses.” Christodal, 946 A.2d at 816 ; see also State v. English, 21 A.3d 403, 407 (R.I.2011); State v. Gauthier, 15 A.3d 1004, 1007 (R.I.2011).

2012In determining whether or not a defendant has committed a violation of his or her probation, "the hearing justice is charged with weighing the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses." Christodal, 946 A.2d at 816 ; see also State v. English, 21 A.3d 403, 407 (R.I.2011); State v. Gauthier, 15 A.3d 1004, 1007 (R.I. 2011).

2012In reviewing the hearing justice’s determination, “[t]his Court gives the trial justice’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses ‘great deference.’” Id. (quoting Christodal, 946 A.2d at 816 ). “[TJhis Court will not ‘second-guess’ supportable credibility assessments of a hearing justice in a probation-revocation hearing,” State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225, 1229 (R.I.2009) (quoting State v. Johnson, 899 A.2d 478, 482 (R.I.2006)), and instead “[our] ‘review of a hearing justice’s decision in a probation-violation proceeding is limited to considering whether the hearing justice acted arbitraril

2011“This Court gives the trial justice’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses ‘great deference.’ ” Id. (quoting Christodal, 946 A.2d at 816 ). “[T]his Court will not ‘second-guess’ supportable credibility assessments of a hearing justice in a probation-revocation hearing.” State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225, 1229 (R.I.2009) (quoting State v. Johnson, 899 A.2d 478, 482 (R.I.2006)).

2022“To determine whether the defendant has committed a violation, the hearing justice weighs the evidence and assesses the credibility of the witnesses.” Molina, 251 A.3d at 493 (quoting Neufville, 172 A.3d at 165 ).

2021“On review, ‘this Court accords great deference to the hearing justice’s credibility assessments.’” Neufville, 172 A.3d at 165 (brackets omitted) (quoting Beaudoin, 137 A.3d at 732 ).

2016“To determine whether the defendant has committed a violation, the hearing justice *732 weighs the evidence and assesses the credibility of the witnesses.” Barrientos, 88 A.3d at 1133 (quoting State v. Ford, 56 A.3d 463, 469 (R.I.2012)).

2014“To determine whether the defendant has committed a violation, the hearing justice weighs the evidence and assesses the credibility of the witnesses.” Ford, 56 A.3d at 469 (quoting English, 21 A.3d at 407 ).

2012In reviewing the hearing justice’s determination, “[t]his Court gives the trial justice’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses ‘great deference.’” Id. (quoting Christodal, 946 A.2d at 816 ). “[TJhis Court will not ‘second-guess’ supportable credibility assessments of a hearing justice in a probation-revocation hearing,” State v. Jackson, 966 A.2d 1225, 1229 (R.I.2009) (quoting State v. Johnson, 899 A.2d 478, 482 (R.I.2006)), and instead “[our] ‘review of a hearing justice’s decision in a probation-violation proceeding is limited to considering whether the hearing justice acted arbitraril

2011It is well established that “[t]his Court’s ‘review of a hearing justice’s decision in a probation-violation proceeding is limited to considering whether the hearing justice acted arbitrarily or capriciously in finding a violation.’ ” Sylvia, 871 A.2d at 957 (quoting State v. Rioux, 708 A.2d 895, 897 (R.I.1998)). ill Discussion The defendant argues that the state’s proffered evidence was “dubious” and that “the hearing justice acted arbitrarily and capriciously” in determining that defendant violated his probation.

2022“This Court’s review of a hearing justice’s decision in a probation-violation proceeding is limited to considering whether the hearing justice acted arbitrarily or capriciously in finding a violation.” State v. Chandler, 225 A.3d 946 , 947 (R.I. 2020) (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Wiggins, 919 A.2d 987, 989 (R.I. 2007)). “[D]eference should be accorded ‘to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses made by a judicial officer who has had the opportunity to listen to live testimony and to observe demeanor.’” Segrain, 243 A.3d at 1062 (quoting State v. Washington, 42 A.3d 1265, 1271 (R

2022“This Court’s review of a hearing justice’s decision in a probation-violation proceeding is limited to considering whether the hearing justice acted arbitrarily or capriciously in finding a violation.” State v. Chandler, 225 A.3d 946 , 947 (R.I. 2020) (brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Wiggins, 919 A.2d 987, 989 (R.I. 2007)). “[D]eference should be accorded ‘to the assessment of the credibility of witnesses made by a judicial officer who has had the opportunity to listen to live testimony and to observe demeanor.’” Segrain, 243 A.3d at 1062 (quoting State v. Washington, 42 A.3d 1265, 1271 (R

2011This Court gives the trial justice’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses “great deference.” Christodal, 946 A.2d at 816 (quoting Bajakian v. Erinakes, 880 A.2d 843, 852 (R.I.2005)).

2011It is well established that “[t]his Court’s ‘review of a hearing justice’s decision in a probation-violation proceeding is limited to considering whether the hearing justice acted arbitrarily or capriciously in finding a violation.’ ” Sylvia, 871 A.2d at 957 (quoting State v. Rioux, 708 A.2d 895, 897 (R.I.1998)). ill Discussion The defendant argues that the state’s proffered evidence was “dubious” and that “the hearing justice acted arbitrarily and capriciously” in determining that defendant violated his probation.