Summary
The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of David Ray Stringer's community control sanctions for an aggravated burglary conviction. The court held that the revocation was not based solely on hearsay because the trial court also considered corroborating photographs, the deputy's personal observations, and Stringer's failure to appear at a required hearing. The court further concluded that the challenged statements would qualify as excited utterances even if the rules of evidence applied.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court improperly revoked Stringer's community control based solely on hearsay evidence.
- Whether the hearsay statements attributed to K.S. were admissible as excited utterances even if the Rules of Evidence applied to the community-control revocation hearing.
Holdings
- The trial court did not revoke Stringer's community control based solely on hearsay evidence because it also considered photographs, the deputy's personal observations corroborating K.S.'s account, and judicially noticed Stringer's failure to appear for the required status hearing.
- Even if the Rules of Evidence applied to the revocation hearing and the trial court had relied solely on the hearsay testimony, K.S.'s statements were admissible as excited utterances because they concerned a startling event, were made while she remained under the stress of excitement, related to the event, and were based on her personal observation.
Key quotations
“revocation hearing is an informal proceeding, not a criminal trial” (¶ 15)
“the trier of fact should be able to consider any reliable and relevant evidence to determine whether the [defendant] has violated the conditions of his [supervision].” (¶ 15)
Factual background
Stringer was serving community control for an aggravated burglary conviction, subject to conditions including no contact with the victims, an 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew, compliance with the law, and attendance at a status hearing. On December 15, 2020, police responded to the residence of K.S., who reported that Stringer entered the residence, assaulted her, fought with her boyfriend, and took cell phones. The responding deputy observed K.S. upset and physically injured, as well as damage and disarray in the residence; Stringer also failed to appear for the required status hearing.
Procedural history
Stringer pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary and was sentenced to community control sanctions. After his probation officer filed a notice alleging multiple violations, Stringer waived a probable cause hearing and denied the allegations. Following a revocation hearing, the trial court found violations, revoked community control, and sentenced him to three to four and a half years in prison. The court of appeals affirmed.