Miller v. State
273 So. 3d 921
| Ala. Crim. App. | 2018Background
- Miller pleaded guilty (July 14, 2016) to unlawful possession/receipt of a controlled substance; sentence of 97 months was suspended and he was placed on 3 years' probation.
- Probation officer filed a delinquency report (Jan. 10, 2018) alleging Miller committed new offenses including first-degree arson; Miller was arrested and counsel was appointed.
- At revocation hearings (Jan. 31 and Feb. 15, 2018) the State presented testimony from the victim (Raven Harris) and a fire-investigator; Harris had previously given a written statement saying her six-year-old son saw Miller set the fire but recanted at the hearing.
- Officer testimony largely relayed Harris’s earlier statements; Miller presented no evidence and did not testify.
- The circuit court found it was reasonably satisfied Miller committed arson and revoked probation (Feb. 27, 2018); Miller appealed. The district court had earlier found no probable cause in the arson case at preliminary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State presented sufficient evidence to revoke probation | Miller: revocation rested solely on hearsay (Harris’s recounting of her son's statements) and thus was insufficient | State: testimony placing Miller at the house and corroboration by officer constitute nonhearsay proof | Court: Reversed — hearsay formed the sole basis linking Miller to arson; nonhearsay testimony only placed him at the house earlier, not at the fire |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte J.J.D., 778 So.2d 240 (Ala. 2000) (revocation requires only that court be reasonably satisfied from the evidence)
- Puckett v. State, 680 So.2d 980 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (hearsay may be admitted in revocation hearings at court’s discretion)
- Goodgain v. State, 755 So.2d 591 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999) (hearsay may not be the sole basis for revocation)
- Clayton v. State, 669 So.2d 220 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995) (use of hearsay alone denies right to confront/cross-examine and cannot alone support revocation)
- Ex parte Dunn, 163 So.3d 1003 (Ala. 2014) (reversal where no nonhearsay evidence corroborated hearsay linking probationer to new offense)