State v. Leggett

709 A.2d 491, 167 Vt. 438

• Court: Supreme Court of Vermont
• Decided: February 2, 1998
• Docket: 96-249
• Status: Published

Opinions

Amestoy, C.J.

Defendant Harold Leggett appeals revocation of his probation for violation of a condition prohibiting contact with children under the age of sixteen without the approval of his probation officer. Defendant argues that the court erred by allowing introduction of hearsay testimony about defendant’s action's without first making a finding and stating reasons as to whether there was good cause to admit the testimony. We affirm.

In February 1993, defendant pled nolo contendere to a charge of sexual assault against his stepdaughter, a minor. The court sentenced defendant to serve twenty-two months to twelve years with all suspended except twenty-two months. Defendant was given credit for time served and placed on probation.

In February 1994, defendant was sentenced to an additional one year to serve upon findings that his disruptive behavior in sex-offender group treatment and his nonpayment of counseling costs violated conditions of his probation. Defendant returned to the community in September 1994. Following unsubstantiated reports that defendant was having contact with children under age sixteen in 1994 and 1995, defendant’s probation officer received a substantiated report in January 1996. She filed a probation-violation complaint alleging that defendant violated the condition of his probation prohibiting contact with children under age sixteen without approval of his probation officer. The probation officer recommended that the court impose defendant’s underlying sentence.

At two days of hearings on the merits, eight witnesses testified, including defendant and a minor who was under age sixteen at the time of the alleged contact. Following the hearings, the court made oral findings and concluded that defendant had violated a condition of his probation by having contact with children under sixteen. The court sentenced defendant to serve the underlying sentence of twenty-two months to twelve years with credit for time served.

On appeal, defendant claims that he was substantially prejudiced at the probation-revocation hearing by the introduction of hearsay testimony without which, he argues, “the court may not have found a violation or sentenced [him] so harshly.” Defendant’s principal objection is to the testimony of a Social and Rehabilitation Services worker who interviewed the seven-year-old girl with whom defendant allegedly had contact.¹ Defendant correctly contends that our holding in State v. Austin, 165 Vt. 389, 685 A.2d 1076 (1996), requires the trial court in a probation-revocation hearing to make an explicit finding and state its reasons on the record as to whether there is good cause for dispensing with a probationer’s confrontation right and admitting hearsay into evidence. Id. at 396, 685 A.2d at 1081. The trial court made no such finding here.²

We were recently obligated to vacate a probation-revocation decision and remand for additional findings because, notwithstanding sufficient nonhearsay evidence for the court to find that the defendant violated at least one condition of probation, the court did not specify which' conditions of probation were violated and how they were violated. See State v. Styles, 166 Vt. 615, 616, 693 A.2d 734, 735 (1997). Consequently, we were unable to determine whether the trial court relied on impermissible hearsay in revoking defendant’s probation. Id.

Here, the trial court identified the condition of probation and specified how it was violated. The court’s revocation of probation must be affirmed if, without considering the hearsay, there was “sufficient evidence” in the record to support the trial court’s conclusion. In re B.S., 163 Vt. 445, 454, 659 A.2d 1137, 1143 (1995); see United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 114 (11th Cir. 1994) (admission of hearsay evidence in probation-revocation hearing was harmless error because record contained sufficient admissible evidence to support district court’s decision).³ Notwithstanding defendant’s assertion that hearsay testimony admitted without the requisite Austin finding was of. controlling significance to the court’s decision to revoke probation, there was ample direct evidence to support the conclusion that defendant had had contact with children under age sixteen in violation of the terms of his probation. See State v. Sanborn, 155 Vt. 430, 436, 584 A.2d 1148, 1152 (1990) (“Findings fairly and reasonably supported by any credible evidence must stand.”).⁴

H.D. testified that while she was under age sixteen she visited the home of seven-year-old S.L. when defendant was present. She also testified that S.L. called defendant “uncle,” a fact admitted by defendant in his own testimony. H.D. stated that defendant did not leave when she visited the house, although she was under age sixteen on both occasions where she recalled seeing defendant. The trial court also had the benefit of an affidavit signed by H.D. that described her contacts with defendant. Unlike Austin, where we struck a finding supported only by an improperly admitted affidavit, see Austin, 165 Vt. at 397-98,685 A.2d at 1082, here the court’s finding that defendant was present while children were present is supported by H.D.’s testimony and her admissible affidavit.

There was also sufficient evidence — without reliance on hearsay testimony — to support the court’s finding that defendant attended a superbowl party where seven-year-old S.L. was present. The trial, court found that defendant did not leave the party despite the presence of S.L., except to respond to an emergency call from work. The court further found that defendant returned to the party without determining whether the child was still there. Each fact central to the court’s finding relating to the “superbowl contact” was elicited from defendant on cross-examination.

There was more than a preponderance of admissible evidence to support the trial court’s determination that H.D.’s contacts with defendant and defendant’s presence at the superbowl party with S.L. were violations of the condition of probation prohibiting contact with children under age sixteen. See 28 V.S.A. § 302(a)(4) (court may revoke probation after violation is established by preponderance of evidence). Either determination satisfies the requirement that “[t]he trial court must first make a factual determination of what actions the probationer took, and then make ‘an implicit legal conclusion that certain acts constitute a violation of the probationary terms.’ ” Austin, 165 Vt. at 398, 685 A.2d at 1082 (quoting Resper v. United States, 527 A.2d 1257, 1260 n.1 (D.C. 1987)).

Defendant argues, however, that even if direct evidence supports the finding that he did have contact with children under age sixteen, it is only the hearsay statements of S.L. that can be construed as the evidentiary basis for the court’s characterization of defendant’s contacts with the child as “numerous” and “not inadvertent.” The language of the trial court with which defendant takes issue came at the imposition of sentence, during which the court made the following statement:⁵ 6

The Court is persuaded that, Mr. Leggett, these have not been inadvertent contacts. The[y] have been numerous. The Court finds from the evidence, and I think, probation is not working and that, if there is going to be release, it ought to be under parole and the close supervision that parole allows.

Despite defendant’s repeated claim that characterization of his contacts with children under age sixteen as “numerous” and “not inadvertent” could have been predicated only upon S.L.’s hearsay statements, a review of the transcript reveals an abundance of direct evidence that amply supports the court’s statement. This is especially true when one understands the “arrangement” between defendant and S.L.’s mother, a relationship that the trial court had the benefit of examining when weighing their testimony.⁶

S.L.’s mother testified that she saw defendant four or five times each week and that defendant stayed overnight at her house or she stayed overnight at his house. Defendant testified that S.L.’s mother cooked his supper and did his laundry.

The mother testified that defendant’s twin brother is the father of S.L. and that she and S.L. occasionally visit the father in jail where he is serving time for sexual assault on a minor whom defendant also assaulted. The mother stated that she does not believe that either defendant or his brother sexually assaulted children. She testified that she maintains this belief even though defendant admitted to sexually assaulting his stepdaughter. She also acknowledged that she wrote checks for defendant’s sex-offender counseling.

Although defendant and S.L.’s mother testified that they made child-care arrangements such that S.L. was never present when defendant was with S.L.’s mother and that when defendant and S.L. came in contact, immediate steps were taken to absent one from the other, the trial court was not required to find their testimony credible. See State v. Parker, 139 Vt. 179, 182, 423 A.2d 851, 852 (1980) (trier of fact has sole determination concerning weight of evidence, credibility of witnesses, and persuasive effect of testimony). The court in fact had sufficient basis to doubt the veracity of the testimony of both the mother and defendant. The mother testified that she saw defendant four or five times each week after she finished work at 9:00 or 11:00 p.m. or on her days off. The visits ranged from less than an hour to overnight and took place at either of their houses. While the mother was at work, S.L. stayed with a daycare provider. According to the mother, if S.L. came home from daycare and defendant was at the mother’s house, defendant would leave or the mother would take him home. The mother testified that while she drove defendant home, S.L. would stay with her older sister or the mother would take S.L. back to daycare or to a friend’s house.

The mother’s testimony on cross-examination undermines her claim that alternative care arrangements minimized any contact between defendant and S.L. The mother admitted that S.L.’s older sister left home for four months and did not look after S.L. during that time. When asked to provide the names of the friends who the mother claimed watched S.L. when the mother and defendant were together, the mother at first refused and then when ordered by the court to answer stated that she did not recall their last names. Most significantly, the mother claimed that the day-care provider often watched S.L. when the mother and defendant spent the night together. The day-care provider, however, testified that she had taken care of S.L. for only one night since defendant’s release from prison. Given the close relationship between defendant and S.L.’s mother, the mother’s contradictory testimony, and the conflicting testimony of the mother and the day-care provider, there was ample evidence to find — without reliance on the objectionable hearsay — that defendant was in contact with S.L. on numerous occasions and that these contacts were not accidental. Cf. Sanborn, 155 Vt. at 434, 584 A.2d at 1151 (viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, Court found ample evidence to support trial court’s conclusion that defendant violated condition of probation).

Defendant would have us reverse a trial court’s revocation of probation and imposition of sentence where the result “ ‘could have changed’ ” had the court not heard the hearsay testimony. (Quoting Richard v. Richard, 146 Vt. 286, 287, 501 A.2d 1190, 1190 (1985)) (emphasis omitted). Austin, however, was not intended to establish a per se rule requiring reversal whenever hearsay testimony is admitted without a finding of good cause to dispense with the probationer’s confrontation right. Our primary inquiry continues to be whether credible evidence fairly and reasonably supports the court’s findings. See Austin, 165 Vt. at 398, 685 A.2d at 1082. If a probation violation is established, the court has discretion to revoke probation and require defendant to serve the underlying sentence. 28 V.S.A. § 304(a); see State v. Therrien, 140 Vt. 625, 628, 442 A.2d 1299, 1301 (1982) (absent showing that trial court abused or withheld its discretion, enforcement of original sentence after finding of violation is without error).⁷

Here, without reliance on the objectionable hearsay testimony, the trial court had sufficient evidence to find that defendant had violated his condition of probation prohibiting him from contacts with children under age sixteen. Our review of the evidence does not support the view that but for the hearsay testimony the trial court would have determined that the violation was “fleeting and of no consequence.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 495 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting in part). Instead, the record fully supports the trial court’s judgment that imposition of the underlying sentence was consistent with the direct evidence that defendant’s failure to abide by one of his most significant probationary conditions was neither inadvertent nor isolated.

Affirmed.

1 Defendant also objects to the introduction of a “treatment summary” upon which he claims “[o]ne pai’t of the court's conclusion may have rested.” Assuming without deciding that the statements within the summary constitute hearsay, the record is devoid of any indication that the trial court relied upon the summary. In addition, the conclusion of the court to which defendant excepts, that “probation is not working,” was amply demonstrated by admissible evidence and testimony. See State v. Emery, 156 Vt. 364, 371, 593 A.2d 77, 81 (1991) (“We need not decide whether error occurred since we are convinced that introduction of the evidence did not have the slightest effect in this case and was therefore harmless.”).

2 The State argues that Austin does not apply because it was issued after defendant’s conviction and sentence became final, and after the probation proceedings occurred. We recently acknowledged our adoption of the common-law rule that, except in extraordinary circumstances, the Court will give effect to a change in the law while a case is on direct review. See State v. Styles, 166 Vt. 615, 616, 693 A.2d 734, 735 (1997). Because defendant’s appeal was on direct review at the time Austin was issued and because extraordinary circumstances are not present, we hold that Austin may be applied to defendant’s case.

3 The dissent argues that the court’s decision can be affirmed only if we find the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See 167 Vt. at 447, 709 A.2d at 496. The assertion that this more rigorous standard of review has been extended to probation-revocation hearings finds little support in precedent or logic. Contrary to the claims of the dissent, our decision in State v. Emery, 156 Vt. 364, 593 A.2d 77 (1991), did not announce a standard of review for an evidentiary error in a probation-revocation case, but instead concluded that “[w]e need not decide whether error occurred.” Id. at 371, 593 A.2d at 81. Moreover, as the dissent correctly maintains, our standard of review is more rigorous in criminal cases “because of the elevated standard of proof.” 167 Vt. at 447,709 A.2d at 496. We find it relevant that a probation hearing is neither a proceeding designed to punish a criminal defendant for violation of the criminal law, United States v. Meeks, 25 F.3d 1117, 1123 (1994), nor does it carry a burden of proof any higher than a preponderance Of evidence. 28 VS.A. § 302(a)(4). We have previously recognized the logic of applying a standard of review consistent with the standard of proof. See State v. Carter, 164 Vt. 545, 556, 674 A.2d 1258, 1266 (1996).

4 The dissent’s claim that “[t]he only evidence that directly supports that contacts were numerous . . . was the improperly admitted hearsay,” 167 Vt. at 449, 709 A.2d at 498, ignores direct admissible evidence of at least three contacts defendant had with children under the age of sixteen in violation of the terms of his probation. The transcript allows us to determine whether there was a factual basis for the court’s oral findings and revocation of probation. State v. Millard, 149 Vt. 384, 386, 543 A.2d 700, 701-02 (1988).

5 Prior to the court’s remarks, defendant, attempting to minimize the frequency of his contacts with S.L., said in a statement to the court: “And I’m'told that if I’m there at the house and that little one comes in I’m supposed to leave. And that’s what I did most of the time.” (Emphasis added.)

6 Our review of the testimony of defendant, the mother, and the witnesses who contradicted them is not predicated, as the dissent would have it, on “the possibility of disbelief.” 167 Vt. at 449 n.4, 709 A.2d at 498 n.4. It rests, instead, on the reasonable and well-founded premise that clearly implausible and inherently contradictory testimony can often corroborate the fact at issue. See Carter, 164 Vt. at 558, 674 A.2d at 1268 (“Perhaps the strongest corroboration [of the State’s case] was defendant’s own explanation of events.”).

7 Defendant’s portrayal of the imposition of the full underlying sentence of twelve years as disproportionate to the violation minimizes the violation and overstates the trial court’s order. In imposing the underlying sentence of twenty-two months to twelve years, the court gave defendant credit for time served (over thirty-six months), and made it clear that it had no objection to early parole:

And accordingly I’m going to sentence — order that [defendant] serve the underlying sentence with the credit for time served. And I will also indicate, and it may indicate on the mittimus, that the court has no objection to early parole when parole is appropriate. And that may be entered on the mittimus.