Ingram: Companion site for Criminal Evidence, 11th Edition


Case Studies

Chapter 02: Approach to the Study of Criminal Evidence

Overview — Based on: Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 2010 Ind. App. LEXIS 504 (2010).

After being granted probation, Defendant Holmes was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and public intoxication. He had been incarcerated for possession of cocaine and two counts of theft. After a hearing, his probation was revoked and the trial court ordered that he serve the remainder of his sentence, 98 weeks, on home detention. He was not to consume alcohol. About a month later, he submitted a urine sample that tested positive for alcohol.

The trial court held a hearing to determine the facts and whether Holmes had violated provisions of this probation. At the conclusion of the proceeding, the trial court determined that the evidence supported a finding that Holmes had violated the terms of his home detention. The trial court revoked Holmes’s placement on home detention and ordered that he serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence in the custody of the Department of Corrections. Holmes appealed, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had consumed alcohol in violation of the conditions of his home detention.

As the basis for his appeal, Holmes contended that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the urinalysis report into evidence during the home detention revocation hearing. Holmes argued that the urinalysis report was unreliable hearsay because neither the toxicologist nor the certifying scientist testified during the home detention revocation hearing, resulting in the admission of hearsay evidence.

Based on prior cases, trial courts generally followed the guidelines ordered by the Indiana Supreme Court. The state supreme court previously adopted the substantial trustworthiness test as the means for determining whether hearsay evidence should be admitted during a hearing relating to the revocation of an individual’s probation or community corrections placement. The substantial trustworthiness test requires that the trial court evaluate the reliability of the hearsay evidence. A corrections field officer testified concerning the details of how the urine sample was collected, stored, and transmitted to the testing laboratory and how he followed department procedures. With respect to the urinalysis report of tests of Holmes’s urine, a laboratory toxicologist affirmed under the penalties of perjury that Holmes’s urine sample “was received under sealed and controlled conditions and was properly Identified, Accessioned, and Tested in accordance to the Standard Operating Procedures of [the laboratory].”

Defendant Holmes contended on appeal that the evidence of intoxication was not properly presented to the court and that the evidence was not sufficient to revoke his conditional release.

Questions

  1. As a general rule, in most jurisdictions, are the rules of evidence that are applicable in a trial on the merits followed in parole and probation revocation hearings and in hearings to revoke community corrections placements?

    Correct Answer

    No. The hearing to revoke parole or probation is not a trial on the merits of the original case but is an inquiry concerning whether the defendant has complied with requirements for conditional release or whether a defendant should be returned to full criminal justice custody. Therefore, a judge may consider any source of reliable evidence, including hearsay evidence, in making a determination of whether to revoke parole or probation or community control. Due process requires fairness, not a particular process that mirrors a criminal trial. See Chapter 2, Section 2.9.

  2. In this particular case, was fundamental fairness or due process followed by the correctional officials and by the judge in the case to properly revoke the probation and community control that had previously been granted to the defendant?

    Correct Answer

    Yes. The correctional officials used a routine process that met the prescribed standards to collect the defendant’s urine, to have it tested, and to have the results reported to the trial judge. While the process might not have produced results that would have been admitted in an original trial on the merits, fundamental fairness was preserved and the substantial rights of the defendant were not violated. The court noted that. although a revocation hearing has certain due process requirements, it is not to be equated with an adversarial criminal proceeding and is a more narrow inquiry, and its procedures are to be more flexible.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.