" In People v. Yantis (1984), 125 Ill. App.3d 767, 769, 466 N.E.2d 603, 604, the State called the defendant as its only witness at the hearing on the State's petition to revoke defendant's probation. The State's petition alleged that he had failed to comply with the conditions of his probation that he pay restitution, costs, and a fine.
This state, at about the same time, had held that probation revocation proceedings were criminal in nature, albeit with a lesser burden of proof, and, therefore, a defendant could not be called to testify against himself in such a proceeding. See People v. Yantis, 125 Ill. App.3d 767, 771 (1984). However, this court commented that Yantis was "effectively overruled by Murphy."
226 Ill. App.3d at 759, 589 N.E.2d at 818. Accord People v. Davis, 216 Ill. App.3d 884, 576 N.E.2d 510 (1991); People v. Clark, 268 Ill. App.3d 810, 645 N.E.2d 590 (1995); contra People v. Yantis, 125 Ill. App.3d 767, 466 N.E.2d 603 (1984). Neckopulos' reliance on Yantis, in support of her argument that the fifth amendment right to remain silent exists at probation revocation hearings, is unwarranted.
The fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination exists at revocation probation hearings and counsel is ineffective if he does not control the assertion and the waiver of the privilege. ( People v. Yantis (1984), 125 Ill. App.3d 767, 466 N.E.2d 603.) Instead, defense counsel specifically asked defendant whether she used cocaine and whether her baby was born addicted to cocaine.
See Minnesota v. Murphy (1984), 465 U.S. 420, 435-36 n. 7, 79 L.Ed.2d 409, 424-25 n. 7, 104 S.Ct. 1136, 1146-47 n. 7 (compelling probationer to appear to discuss noncriminal violations of probation does not offend the privilege against self-incrimination); 3 W. LaFave J. Israel, Criminal Procedure ยง 25.4, at 164 (1984). Contra People v. Yantis (1984), 125 Ill. App.3d 767, 466 N.E.2d 603 (effectively overruled by Murphy). We find the State's reliance on People v. Moaton (1989), 182 Ill. App.3d 161, 537 N.E.2d 989, and People v. Cottrell (1986), 141 Ill. App.3d 364, 490 N.E.2d 950, to be misplaced.
We have reviewed the authorities relied upon by appellant and conclude they are not controlling in this proceeding. In People v. Yantis, 125 Ill.App.3d 767, 81 Ill.Dec. 17, 466 N.E.2d 603 (1984), while it was held that counsel was ineffective in a probation revocation proceeding, counsel permitted defendant to testify when there was no tactical advantage to do so and without defendant's testimony there was no proof of failing to comply with financial obligations imposed by the sentence. State v. Green, 236 S.W.2d 298 (Mo. 1951); and Ray v. State, 644 S.W.2d 663 (Mo.App. 1982) relied upon by movant are inapposite.