179 So. 3d 349
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- Marquis L. Bell, Jr. was adjudicated to have violated probation after a probation officer conducted an on-site (field) urine drug test that was positive and an independent laboratory later confirmed marijuana metabolites.
- The VOP (violation of probation) affidavit charged drug possession/use but did not allege association with persons engaged in criminal activity.
- At the VOP hearing the probation officer testified about his administration of the field test and the positive result; the lab report was introduced hearsay.
- The trial court found Bell violated probation for drug possession/use and also for associating with criminals; the appellate court affirmed the drug-related finding but reversed the association finding because it was not alleged.
- The Fifth District relied on its precedent in Terry v. State to hold that a probation officer’s personal testimony about a field test, corroborated by a lab report introduced as hearsay, is competent substantial evidence for revocation.
- The court certified conflict with decisions from other districts (e.g., Queior, Dawson, Bray, Rothe) that treated the probation officer’s field-test testimony as inadmissible hearsay or otherwise incompetent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a probation officer may testify to results of a presumptive on-site urine drug test at a VOP hearing | Officer’s in-court testimony about personally administered test is competent non-hearsay and admissible under relaxed VOP rules | Such testimony is hearsay or requires expert/chemist foundation and therefore is not competent | Admissible: officer’s personal testimony is non-hearsay and may be admitted; may also qualify under expert-opinion standards given minimal training |
| Whether a lab report introduced without the chemist’s testimony can corroborate officer testimony | Lab report, though hearsay, is admissible in VOP hearings and corroborates officer’s testimony | Introducing lab report without chemist violates evidentiary/confrontation principles | Admissible: lab report as hearsay is permitted in VOP proceedings and, when corroborating officer testimony, supports revocation |
| Whether revocation may rest on both proper and improper grounds when one ground was not alleged in the affidavit | Revocation may stand if valid ground independently supports decision | Revocation improper where trial court relied on an unpled ground | Court upheld revocation for drugs but reversed/struck the unpled association finding because it was not alleged; overall revocation stands because drug finding alone would have produced same sentence |
| Whether Terry v. State was correctly decided and should control | Terry properly allows field-test testimony corroborated by lab report to support VOP revocation | Conflicting district opinions applied stricter hearsay/expert rules, limiting Terry | Court affirmed Terry’s approach, certified conflict with contrary district decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. State, 777 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (upholding probation officer’s field-test testimony corroborated by lab report as sufficient for VOP)
- Cuciak v. State, 410 So.2d 916 (Fla. 1982) (VOP hearings allow relaxed rules of evidence and admission of hearsay)
- Queior v. State, 157 So.3d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (conflicting district decision treating field-test testimony as incompetent)
- Bray v. State, 75 So.3d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (First District decision relied on to classify probation officer field-test testimony as hearsay)
- Rothe v. State, 76 So.3d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (follows Bray on inadmissibility of officer field-test evidence)
- Chavez v. State, 12 So.3d 199 (Fla. 2009) (trial court has discretion to determine witness qualifications for expert testimony)
- Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642 (Fla. 2008) (Crawford does not apply to probation revocation proceedings; hearsay admissible)