Harold Benjamin, a/k/a Darrell Bernard Stewart, a/k/a Benjamin Harold v. Commonwealth of Virginia
0920162
| Va. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Appellant Harold Benjamin had 16 years of a 20‑year sentence suspended for earlier convictions; a 2015 show‑cause order sought revocation based on numerous subsequent theft/trespass charges.
- At a February 2016 trial on new charges the court acquitted Benjamin of most charges, dismissing two felony petit larceny counts by nolle prosequi for lack of a witness; the court adopted the trial evidence for the later revocation hearing.
- At the May 2016 revocation hearing the Commonwealth introduced: surveillance photographs, Facebook photo(s) purportedly of Benjamin, two trespass convictions, telephone records (nTelos and Verizon), and testimony about investigators’ interviews, including statements by Benjamin’s brother Ronald to Sergeant Gulotta.
- Benjamin objected repeatedly below on hearsay, confrontation, and due‑process grounds; he did not, however, specifically request the circuit court to make the “good cause” findings required when testimonial hearsay is admitted without confrontation.
- The circuit court found Benjamin had violated conditions of his suspended sentence, revoked the remaining sixteen years, and resuspended twelve years (imposing four years active). The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Benjamin's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of telephone records and related testimony (due‑process/confrontation) | Telephone records and agents’ testimony were testimonial hearsay; admission without confrontation violated due process | Revocation hearings allow more flexible evidence rules; Benjamin failed to preserve a due‑process/confrontation objection and, in any event, contested documentary evidence was cumulative and harmless | Overruled — Benjamin waived preservation as to much testimony; records’ admission, if error, was harmless because testimonial content was in the admitted testimony or objected to too late |
| Admissibility of statements by Ronald Benjamin (identifying family relationships and linking phone number) | Ronald’s statements to Sergeant Gulotta were testimonial hearsay; admission without allowing confrontation violated due process | Statements were either not the critical identification asserted, or met good‑cause/reliability standards and/or were cumulative/harmless | Overruled — portions (family identifications) were testimonial but court found substantial guarantees of trustworthiness and good cause to admit without confrontation; remaining challenged assertions were not shown by the record |
| Failure to obtain explicit “good cause” findings | Court consistently admitted hearsay and never made explicit good‑cause findings as required | Benjamin did not request those specific findings below; appellate courts may infer good cause or independently review the record for sufficient evidence | Overruled — because Benjamin failed to request specific findings, appellate review proceeded to determine whether the record supported good cause or harmlessness; it did |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 318 (Supreme Court of Virginia) (testimonial hearsay in revocation admissible only with court finding good cause or sufficient reliability)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. Supreme Court) (due process framework for parole/probation revocation; confrontation may be excused for good cause)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. Supreme Court) (test for when out‑of‑court statements are testimonial)
- Cox v. Commonwealth, 65 Va. App. 506 (Court of Appeals of Virginia) (appellate review and harmless‑error analysis for testimonial hearsay in revocation proceedings)
- Whitehead v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 105 (Supreme Court of Virginia) (standard of review for revocation findings)
- Saunders v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. App. 793 (Court of Appeals of Virginia) (distinguishing Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Fourteenth Amendment due‑process rights in revocation hearings)
- Dearing v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 671 (Supreme Court of Virginia) (cumulative evidence and harmless‑error principles)
