Commonwealth v. Jeremy Felix.

• Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 25-P-0125
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

25-P-125

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

JEREMY FELIX.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, Jeremy Felix, appeals from an order of a

District Court judge revoking his probation. After a hearing,

the judge found the defendant violated the conditions of his

probation by committing new crimes and failing to report to

probation. The defendant appeals, contending that the judge

improperly relied on hearsay evidence contained in grand jury

minutes and police reports. Because the judge did not abuse her

discretion in concluding that the hearsay was substantially

reliable, we affirm.

Background. The defendant was convicted of carrying a

loaded firearm without a license and sentenced to two and one-

half years in a house of correction, one day to serve and the balance suspended until January 22, 2025. The defendant's term

of probation began on October 6, 2022, and its conditions

included that he obey all State laws and report to his probation

officer at such times and places as she required.

On August 12, 2024, the defendant was arraigned in the

Lawrence Division of the District Court Department on a

complaint alleging that on June 3, 2024, he committed crimes

including assault by means of a dangerous weapon (a firearm),

discharge of a firearm within 500 feet of a building, malicious

destruction of property valued at more than $1,200, carrying a

firearm without a license, and unlawful possession of

ammunition. On August 21, a judge found probable cause that the

defendant had violated the conditions of his probation.1 On

September 16, a grand jury returned indictments against the

defendant alleging similar crimes.

On December 5, 2024, at the probation violation hearing,

the prosecutor informed the judge that the defendant had been

arraigned in the Superior Court on the new crimes. The judge

considered evidence including the grand jury minutes and police

reports describing the new crimes. The probation officer also

testified that on one occasion the defendant had failed to

1 The probation violation hearing was held before a different District Court judge.

2 report to probation. The judge found by a preponderance of the

evidence that the defendant had violated his probation, both by

committing the new crimes and by failing to report to probation.

The judge revoked the defendant's probation and sentenced him to

two and one-half years in the house of correction, with 116 days

deemed served. The defendant timely appeals.

Discussion. "At a probation violation hearing, the

Commonwealth bears the burden of proving a violation of a

condition of probation by a preponderance of the evidence."

Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 491 Mass. 437, 445 (2023). "A

determination whether a violation of probation has occurred lies

within the discretion of the hearing judge." Commonwealth v.

Bukin, 467 Mass. 516, 519-520 (2014), citing Commonwealth v.

Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 111-112 (1990). The judge's decision to

revoke the defendant's probation and its underlying evidentiary

rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See

Commonwealth v. Rainey, 491 Mass. 632, 648 (2023); Jarrett,

supra.

Hearsay evidence is admissible at a probation revocation

hearing if it is substantially reliable. See Commonwealth v.

Hartfield, 474 Mass. 474, 484 (2016). In determining whether

hearsay is substantially reliable, the judge may consider a

nonexhaustive list of factors, including

3 "whether that evidence (1) is based on personal knowledge and/or direct observation, rather than on other hearsay; (2) involves observations recorded close in time to the events in question; (3) is factually detailed, rather than generalized and conclusory; (4) is internally consistent; (5) is corroborated by any evidence provided by the probationer; (6) was provided by a disinterested witness; or (7) was provided under circumstances that support the veracity of the source (e.g., was provided under the pains and penalties of perjury or subject to criminal penalties for providing false information)."

Rule 7(b) of the District/Municipal Courts Rules for Probation

Violation Proceedings (2024) (rule 7[b]). See Commonwealth v.

Ogarro, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 662, 669 (2019). A hearsay statement

need not satisfy all of those criteria to be substantially

reliable. See Commonwealth v. Patton, 458 Mass. 119, 133

(2022).

Relying on Durling, 407 Mass. at 114, the defendant argues

that the judge impermissibly relied on hearsay evidence, and

without the inadmissible hearsay there was insufficient evidence

to prove that he committed the new crimes. We are not

persuaded. The judge found that the hearsay contained in police

reports and the grand jury testimony of a Lawrence detective was

substantially reliable, involved observations recorded close in

time to the events, was corroborated by evidence including

surveillance video footage and cell phone data, and was

factually detailed. The judge's findings complied with the

4 requirements of Durling and the criteria listed in rule 7 (b).

We discern no abuse of discretion.

Order dated December 5, 2024, finding probation violation, revoking probation, and imposing sentence affirmed.

By the Court (Rubin, Grant & Hodgens, JJ.2),

Clerk

Entered: February 13, 2026.

2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.