Cited by

The trial court stands in the best position to determine witness credibility and we “will not reverse any finding of the trier of fact unless that finding is arbitrary and unsupported by any theory of the evidence.”

“In reviewing a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence, [] we will not disturb the lower court’s ruling absent an abuse of discretion.”

(establishing that providing probationer with written conditions and probationer’s acknowledgement cured any unenforceability of the conditions).

¶12 Lemole argues that our Supreme Court’s effectively overturned Acosta.

A court abuses its discretion “when the [disposition] decision is arbitrary or capricious, or when the court fails to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts relevant to [disposition].” ().

A court abuses its discretion “when the [disposition] decision is arbitrary or capricious, or when the court fails to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts relevant to [disposition].” ().

State v. Stotts , , 87, , 1125 (1985).

Testimony of the jail’s practice “could raise a reasonable inference that proper procedures were followed in this case.” (holding that a parole officer’s testimony that it was the practice to provide copies of probation conditions to parolees was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant had received them).

A hearsay objection, however, concerns the reliability of the evidence, –82, –20 (1985), and under the rule the court may still exclude unreliable evidence.

We will not reverse a trial court’s determination that a defendant violated a term of probation unless the trial court’s finding is “arbitrary and unsupported by any theory of the evidence.” -40, ¶ 15, -34 (App. 2012) ( ).

DISCUSSION ¶11 We will not disturb the trial court’s finding that a defendant violated probation unless the finding “is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” ¶ 15, (

(stating that an abuse of discretion would be “characterized by arbitrariness, capriciousness, or failure to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts relevant to sentencing”).

We will not reverse a trial court’s determination that a defendant violated a term of probation unless the court’s finding is “arbitrary and unsupported by any theory of the evidence.”

(juvenile disposition hearing analogous to adult sentencing).

(juvenile disposition hearing analogous to adult sentencing).

¶9 “[A]n authenticity objection questions the form in which the evidence is presented.” -82, -20 (1985).

In other words, we applied the appropriate standard of review, , and concluded that the evidence supported the trial court’s findings of fact, including the implicit finding that the state had acted in bad faith.