Probation Revocation Reversed in Commonwealth v. Engelking: Massachusetts Appeals Court Reins In Misapplication of Legal Standards
In Commonwealth v. Engelking, 24-P-1103, the Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated a probation violation finding and subsequent sentence after determining that the lower court applied the wrong legal standard. The April 2025 decision serves as an important reminder to defense attorneys, probation officers, and trial judges that due process is alive and well—even in so-called “summary” probation revocation proceedings.
This blog post breaks down the procedural history, key legal issues, and implications of the Appeals Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Engelking, with practical takeaways for criminal defense lawyers in Massachusetts.
Case Summary: Who Is Samantha Engelking?
The defendant, Samantha J. Engelking, was originally charged with assault and battery in the Boston Municipal Court in March 2023. Rather than go to trial, Engelking admitted to sufficient facts for a finding of guilt—a common resolution in Massachusetts known as a continuance without a finding (CWOF). The court continued the case without a finding for nine months, attaching probationary conditions.
But within days of that disposition, Engelking found herself in trouble again—this time in Falmouth District Court, where she was charged with assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault on a person over sixty. These new allegations triggered a notice of probation violation in the original BMC case.
The Violation Hearing: Due Process in the Rearview
The probation violation hearing held in the Boston Municipal Court deviated from the norms required by Massachusetts law.
At the hearing, the Commonwealth introduced hearsay testimony through a police report authored by Officer James O’Doherty of the Bourne Police Department. Officer O'Doherty testified that the victim—identified as F.D., a homeless man living in his truck—accused “Samantha” of physically attacking him after being invited into his vehicle. Police found Engelking in the truck shortly thereafter.
Crucially, the judge concluded: “I find there’s probable cause for the new offense. I find the new offense to be a violation of probation.” Based on that finding, the judge imposed the maximum sentence of two and a half years in the house of correction.
The Legal Misstep: Probable Cause vs. Preponderance of the Evidence
Here's the critical issue that led to reversal: the judge used the wrong standard of proof.
In Massachusetts, the correct legal standard at a probation violation hearing is preponderance of the evidence, not probable cause. This distinction matters deeply:
Probable cause is a low threshold used to justify arrest or filing charges. It asks whether the facts support a reasonable belief that a crime was committed.
Preponderance of the evidence is a higher standard used in civil and administrative hearings—including probation violation hearings. It means that it’s more likely than not that the violation occurred.
By relying only on a finding of probable cause, the judge sidestepped the required legal process and denied Engelking a fair determination under the appropriate evidentiary standard.
The Commonwealth wisely conceded the error on appeal, and the Appeals Court vacated both the violation finding and the sentence.
Additional Errors: Hearsay and Dispositional Concerns
While the court based its reversal on the misapplication of the legal standard, the record suggests further due process violations:
Hearsay Admission Without Reliability Findings: Officer O'Doherty’s testimony relied heavily on statements made by the alleged victim. Defense counsel objected, but the judge permitted the testimony without making the legally required findings of reliability.
Premature Sentencing Without Input: The judge immediately imposed the maximum sentence without giving defense counsel a chance to argue mitigation. When counsel insisted, the judge temporarily “revoked” the sentence—only to immediately “reimpose” it after hearing about Engelking’s mental health history.
No Input from Probation or the Commonwealth: The judge did not solicit any argument from the probation officer or the assistant district attorney before imposing sentence—contrary to best practices and fundamental fairness.
The Defendant’s Background: Trauma, Mental Illness, and Mitigation
Engelking’s attorney offered powerful mitigation evidence at the hearing—evidence that the judge appeared to ignore.
The defendant had a “significant, horrific history of sexual abuse by older men.”
She had recently been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
She had begun working with a social worker to secure placement in a structured sober home.
She was reportedly under enormous emotional strain due to her father’s recent transfer to hospice care with brain cancer.
This profile reflects what many defense attorneys see in probation cases: people with trauma histories and mental illness who are trying to stabilize but face relapse, setbacks, and misunderstanding from the system. Instead of recognizing this complexity, the judge imposed the harshest possible sentence.
The Remedy: New Judge, New Hearing
The Appeals Court not only vacated the probation violation finding and sentence—it also ordered that any future hearing on the matter be conducted before a different judge.
That’s a relatively rare and important move, signaling the panel’s concern that Engelking was not afforded a fair hearing. Citing Commonwealth v. Henriquez, the court emphasized that judicial reassignment is warranted to preserve the “appearance of justice.”
Defense attorneys should be aware of this precedent when seeking reassignment in similar cases involving irregular or rushed revocation proceedings.
SEO Sidebar: Key Phrases and Searchable Takeaways
For those looking to optimize for search engine results, here are some long-tail keywords and phrases this case supports:
“Massachusetts probation violation standards”
“Preponderance of the evidence in probation hearings”
“Probation revocation reversed Appeals Court”
“Continued without a finding violation consequences”
“Mental health defense in probation cases Massachusetts”
“Can a judge revoke probation without hearing from defense?”
“What happens if a judge uses the wrong legal standard in court?”
Including these in firm websites, blogs, and practice area pages will help potential clients—and lawyers—find accurate information about how probation law works in Massachusetts.
Practical Takeaways for Defense Lawyers
1. Know the Standard.
Always make sure the judge uses the correct standard—preponderance of the evidence—at a probation hearing. If the judge says “probable cause,” object clearly and preserve the issue for appeal.
2. Object to Unreliable Hearsay.
Hearsay is admissible in probation hearings, but only if the judge finds it reliable. If the prosecution wants to prove a violation using police reports or third-party statements, make them do the work.
3. Push for Mitigation.
Probation hearings are dispositional as well as factual. Even if a violation is found, judges have discretion in sentencing. Push for structured alternatives, especially where substance use, mental illness, or trauma are in play.
4. Ask for Reassignment If Necessary.
If the judge is closed off, rushes the hearing, or appears to have prejudged the case, ask for a new judge on appeal. The Engelking decision supports reassignment where due process is compromised.
5. File an Appeal When the Judge Gets It Wrong.
Even in misdemeanor or CWOF cases, bad decisions at the probation stage can lead to incarceration. This case proves that Appeals Court panels will intervene when judges ignore the law.
Conclusion: Probation Hearings Are Still Constitutional Hearings
Commonwealth v. Engelking reinforces a simple truth: even at the probation stage, due process still applies. Massachusetts law requires that judges use the right standard of proof, consider all available evidence, and follow fair procedures before revoking someone’s liberty.
The Appeals Court’s decision to vacate the violation and sentence—and to remand the case to a different judge—sends a clear message: rubber-stamping probation revocations is not justice. Defense attorneys should use this case to challenge similar shortcuts and ensure that their clients get a real hearing.
Need help defending a probation violation in Massachusetts? Our firm understands how probation conditions, mental health challenges, and court procedures intersect. Contact us today to schedule a consultation.