Sammy Lee Grimes v. State, 364 Ga. App. 518

Background

Grimes was serving an 11-year probation (after pleading guilty to aggravated assault, arson, and criminal damage) with conditions prohibiting new crimes and violent contact with two named victims.
The State petitioned to revoke probation after an incident in which a named victim called 911 reporting a person threatening to kill those in the home; the victim later identified Grimes on the 911 call, but portions of that call were excluded at the revocation hearing as testimonial.
The victims did not appear at the revocation hearing; the State introduced the 911 recording (only the portion up to 1:13 was admitted) and elicited testimony from the responding officer recounting statements the victim made to the officer at the scene.
Grimes objected that the officer’s testimony was hearsay and violated his due process right to confront adverse witnesses in a probation revocation hearing.
The trial court admitted the officer’s recounting under the present sense impression exception and revoked two years of Grimes’s probation.
On discretionary appeal, the court held the officer’s recounting was not a present sense impression, the State failed to justify the victims’ absence or the reliability of hearsay, and the remaining admissible evidence (the admitted portion of the 911 call) did not identify Grimes — reversal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Grimes)	Held
Whether the officer’s testimony repeating the victim’s statements was admissible under the present sense impression exception	The victim’s statements to the officer were contemporaneous descriptions of the event and thus admissible	The statements to the officer were not sufficiently contemporaneous and are inadmissible hearsay	Not admissible — too removed in time to qualify as present sense impression
Whether admitting that hearsay violated Grimes’s due process right to confront adverse witnesses in a revocation hearing	Probation revocation due process is less strict than the Sixth Amendment; hearsay may be considered in some circumstances	Grimes invoked his confrontation right; State failed to show good cause for nonproduction or reliability of hearsay	Due process required inquiry; State failed to justify nonproduction or prove reliability, so admission violated due process protections
Whether the State met its burden to show good cause for the victim’s absence and reliability of hearsay	The present sense impression exception rendered the hearsay reliable without further showing	State bore the burden to prove reliability and justify nonproduction; it did neither	State did not meet its burden; trial court failed to examine reasons for absence or reliability
Whether the remaining competent evidence proved a probation violation by a preponderance	The 911 call established the alleged threats and identity	The admitted portion of the 911 call did not identify Grimes as the perpetrator	Insufficient — admitted evidence did not identify Grimes; revocation cannot stand

Key Cases Cited

Caldwell v. State, 327 Ga. App. 471 (2014) (standard for revoking probation: violation proven by preponderance)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay admissible only if witness unavailable and cross-examination previously possible)
Williams v. Lawrence, 273 Ga. 295 (2001) (probation/parole revocation due process is less stringent than Sixth Amendment but includes right to confront absent good cause)
Ware v. State, 289 Ga. App. 860 (2008) (hearsay in revocation hearings requires good cause for nonproduction and proof of reliability)
Varner v. State, 306 Ga. 726 (2019) (present sense impression requires contemporaneity with the event)
Owens v. State, 329 Ga. App. 455 (2014) (explaining immediacy requirement for present sense impressions)
United States v. Bates, 960 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2020) (later statements after a 911 call were too remote to be present sense impressions)
United States v. Manfre, 368 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2004) (intervening actions between event and statement defeat present sense impression)
Henley v. State, 317 Ga. App. 776 (2012) (insufficiency precedents for identification in revocation proceedings)