State v. Saffell
2016 Ohio 5283
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In March 2015 Scott Saffell pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with a prohibited breath-alcohol content and was sentenced to 12 months community control.
- In May 2015 the probation department alleged Saffell violated community control by failing to notify his probation officer of a change of residence.
- At the revocation hearing a probation officer testified that a house visit to the address Saffell provided found him absent and that the homeowner—Saffell’s mother-in-law—told the officer Saffell had not lived there for several months.
- Saffell did not object to the probation officer’s hearsay testimony at the hearing.
- The municipal court found a violation and sentenced Saffell to 45 days in jail; Saffell appealed and the jail sentence was stayed pending appeal.
- The Ninth District affirmed, rejecting Saffell’s due-process and sufficiency arguments and finding the hearsay testimony admissible and sufficient given no objection and the declarant’s relationship to Saffell.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Saffell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting and relying on probation officer’s hearsay violated due process | Hearsay is admissible at revocation hearings and may be considered | Sole reliance on hearsay (probation officer’s report of mother-in-law) denied right to confront accuser and violated due process | Court held no due-process violation; Saffell forfeited confrontation claim by not objecting and hearsay could be considered |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove a community-control violation | Testimony established failure to notify change of residence | Hearsay testimony alone was insufficient and therefore revocation was an abuse of discretion | Court found the probation officer’s testimony sufficient and the sentence not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (probationers entitled to certain due-process protections, including confrontation rights)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (established due-process requirements for parole revocation hearings)
- Mingua v. State, 42 Ohio App.2d 35 (10th Dist. 1974) (probation revocation based on multi-layered hearsay can violate confrontation and be insufficient evidence)
- Dudukovich v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 58 Ohio St.2d 202 (1979) (unchallenged hearsay may be considered and given probative effect)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 473 (1947) (unchallenged hearsay may be considered for weight and probative value)