Jessica Briggle v. State
06-15-00041-CR
| Tex. App. | May 18, 2015Background
- Jessica Marie Briggle pled guilty to four counts of forgery and received three years deferred adjudication with restitution and community‑supervision conditions.
- The State filed a Motion to Adjudicate; at the February 17, 2015 hearing the trial court found the alleged violations true, adjudicated guilt, sentenced Briggle to 24 months in state jail, then suspended the sentence and reinstated three years community supervision.
- The State’s evidentiary presentation consisted primarily of testimony from community‑supervision officer Kelly Thrasher and a single document (State’s Exhibit 1) reflecting a failed drug test.
- Thrasher’s testimony recounted alleged missed reporting, unpaid fees, a positive drug use admission, and amounts paid/owed, but relied heavily on office records and third‑party treatment records.
- Appellant argues the exhibit was not properly authenticated as a business record under Tex. R. Evid. 803(6) and much of Thrasher’s testimony was hearsay (including hearsay within hearsay) not admitted under an exception, rendering the evidence insufficient to support adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State’s Exhibit 1 was properly authenticated as a business record | State offered Exhibit 1 as a regularly kept record maintained by community‑supervision office | Briggle: Exhibit 1 lacked proper authentication (chain/record foundation) under Rule 803(6) | Court admitted exhibit at trial; appellant contends admission was error and insufficient for adjudication |
| Whether Thrasher’s testimony constituted admissible proof of violations | State relied on Thrasher’s testimony to prove failures to report, fee delinquencies, and drug relapse | Briggle: Thrasher’s testimony relied on out‑of‑court records and third‑party reports (hearsay/ hearsay within hearsay) not covered by exceptions or properly authenticated | Trial court accepted the testimony; appellant argues such unobjected‑to hearsay cannot support revocation/adjudication |
| Whether hearsay within hearsay violated Rule 805 and required independent proof | State treated third‑party treatment records and office summaries as reliable | Briggle: No separate admissible foundation was established for the underlying records, so hearsay within hearsay rule was violated | Appellant contends combined hearsay lacked probative value and should not sustain adjudication |
| Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to adjudicate guilt | State maintained evidence (Ex.1 + Thrasher) sufficed to prove allegations | Briggle: Evidence was legally insufficient due to improper hearsay and lack of authentication; requests reversal/remand | Appellant requests reversal; brief cites authorities holding unproven hearsay is insufficient in probation revocation/adjudication contexts |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standard of review for probation revocation is abuse of discretion)
- Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (review sufficiency of evidence in light most favorable to trial court)
- Maden v. State, 542 S.W.2d 189 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (unproven hearsay has no probative value in probation revocation)
- Mendoza v. State, 522 S.W.2d 898 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (probation revocation cannot be based on unproved hearsay)
- Frazier v. State, 600 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (unobjected‑to hearsay may not form the basis for probation revocation in certain contexts)