Dunn v. State
163 So. 3d 1003
| Ala. | 2014Background
- Dunn pled guilty to first-degree assault in 2010 and received a split sentence: two years prison and three years probation.
- A probation delinquency report (Mar. 6, 2013) alleged Dunn committed a new offense (a burglary/third-degree robbery), failed to pay court-ordered moneys, and failed to pay supervision fees.
- At the revocation hearing the State presented: Detective Shirey (investigation and hearsay statements implicating Dunn) and DNA analyst Donna Gibbons (testified DNA on blood from a pair of pants matched Dunn).
- No witness with firsthand knowledge testified about where the pants were found; the evidence-submission form and Detective Shirey’s testimony were hearsay about the pants’ connection to the burglary; Officer McKinley (who allegedly recovered the pants) did not testify.
- The trial court revoked probation based on being "reasonably satisfied" Dunn participated in the burglary. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in an unpublished memorandum. The Alabama Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a potential conflict with Goodgain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hearsay may be the sole basis for probation revocation | Dunn: The revocation rested entirely on hearsay (no witness connected the pants to the burglary); violates rule that hearsay alone cannot revoke probation | State: DNA testimony (nonhearsay) corroborated the hearsay linking Dunn to the burglary | Court: Reversed — hearsay was the only evidence connecting Dunn to the burglary; Goodgain controls that hearsay alone cannot support revocation |
| Whether DNA testimony can corroborate hearsay about the pants’ provenance | Dunn: DNA does not establish where pants were found or tie them to the burglary scene | State: Gibbons’s DNA match corroborated Detective’s hearsay linking Dunn to the crime | Court: DNA testimony did not supply nonhearsay evidence linking the pants to the burglary; insufficient corroboration |
| Applicability of Confrontation/forensic testimony precedents | Dunn: Not contesting admissibility of DNA evidence; contesting corroboration role | State: Cited Ware to show lab testimony can satisfy confrontation/corroboration concerns | Court: Distinguished Ware as addressing Confrontation Clause issues, not corroboration of hearsay tying evidence to a crime |
| Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision conflicted with Goodgain | Dunn: Court of Criminal Appeals conflicted by allowing revocation on hearsay-supported record | State: Argued corroboration existed via DNA testimony | Court: Found conflict with Goodgain and reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodgain v. State, 755 So.2d 591 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999) (hearsay evidence may not be the sole basis for revoking probation)
- Mitchell v. State, 462 So.2d 740 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984) (standard that trial court need only be reasonably satisfied of probation violation)
- Clayton v. State, 669 So.2d 220 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995) (use of hearsay as sole proof denies right to confront and cross-examine)
- Armstrong v. State, 312 So.2d 620 (Ala. 1975) (articulating "reasonably satisfied" standard for revocation)
- Ex parte Morrow, 915 So.2d 539 (Ala. 2004) (criminal law questions reviewed de novo)