NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 

23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, 

as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties 

and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's 

decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire 

court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. 

A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 

2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted 

above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 

n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

23-P-724

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

DYLAN J. ST. FRANCIS.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant, Dylan J. St. Francis, appeals from an order 

of a District Court judge revoking his probation. The defendant

argues that his due process rights were violated when the judge 

based the probation violation finding on information in a police 

report that was unreliable hearsay. We affirm.

Background. On June 17, 2021, the defendant pleaded guilty 

in the Uxbridge District Court to indecent assault and battery 

and was sentenced to two years in the house of correction, with 

one year to serve and the balance suspended for eighteen months. 

His conditions of probation included that he obey all state 

laws.
2

On July 17, 2022, a complaint issued in the Worcester 

District Court alleging that the defendant had committed rape in 

violation of G. L. c. 265, § 22 (b), and assault and battery on 

a household member in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a).1 As 

a result, a notice of probation violation issued in the Uxbridge 

case. The probation officer summonsed the alleged victim in the 

Worcester case to testify at the probation violation hearing.

The probation violation hearing was held on October 5, 

2022. The probation officer testified that the alleged victim 

in the Worcester case was unable to attend because she was 

living in New Hampshire and had difficulty obtaining 

transportation. The probation officer asked to submit a police 

report in evidence; the defendant objected, arguing that it was 

not reliable. The judge found that the police report was 

factually detailed and reliable. The judge concluded that the 

defendant had violated his probation by violating a criminal 

law, noting the docket number of the Worcester case. On the

probation violation finding and disposition form, the judge 

indicated the basis for the violation by checking the box next 

to the words "PROBATIONER'S ADMISSION." On the same form, the 

judge did not check the boxes next to the option that the 

finding of a violation was based on testimonial, documentary, or 

1 That complaint involved a different alleged victim from

the one in the Uxbridge case.
3

hearsay evidence. The judge revoked the defendant's probation 

and sentenced him to one year in the house of correction.2

On February 24, 2023, on the Worcester District Court 

complaint, the defendant pleaded guilty to so much of the count 

for assault and battery on a household member as alleged assault 

and battery, and by agreement of the parties was sentenced to 

one year probation. As to the count alleging rape, it was 

amended to indecent assault and battery and dismissed. The 

tender of plea form noted that the probation officer objected to 

the disposition. It set forth the judge's reasons for the 

disposition as "Victim has left state & did not appear at VOP. 

Comm. represents she doesn't want to further prosecute & wants 

prob[ation]."

Discussion. The defendant argues that the judge improperly

based the finding of a probation violation on unreliable hearsay

in the police report.3 The judge's findings make clear that he 

revoked the defendant's probation based on the defendant's 

2 At oral argument, defense counsel informed the panel that 

the defendant has completed serving that sentence.

3 To the extent that the defendant argues that the testimony 

of the alleged victim in the Worcester case was "necessary" at 

the probation violation hearing, he waived that argument because 

he did not seek to call her to testify. Contrast Commonwealth

v. Costa, 490 Mass. 118, 131 (2022) (judge erred in precluding 

defendant from calling sexual assault victim to testify at 

probation violation hearing).
4

admission that he "pushed" the victim, which, as the defendant 

later admitted at the plea, amounted to an assault and battery.4

We review a judge's finding of a probation violation for 

abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 

108, 111-112 (1990). To decide whether there was an abuse of 

discretion, we must determine "whether the record discloses 

sufficient reliable evidence to warrant the findings by the 

judge, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the probationer

had violated the specified [probation] conditions" (citation and 

alterations omitted). Commonwealth v. Jarrett, 491 Mass. 437, 

440 (2023). If a defendant's probation is revoked "based solely 

on hearsay evidence, the proffered hearsay must have 

'substantial indicia of reliability' to satisfy the good cause 

requirement" for proceeding without a witness with personal 

knowledge of the evidence. Commonwealth v. Costa, 490 Mass. 

118, 124 (2022), quoting Commonwealth v. Hartfield, 474 Mass. 

474, 484 (2016). See Rule 7(b) of the District Court Rules for 

Probation Violation Proceedings (2015). To determine whether 

4 Because we conclude that the police report contained 

reliable hearsay, we do not reach the Commonwealth's argument 

that the defendant's subsequent plea to assault and battery 

rendered moot his claim that the judge impermissibly considered 

unreliable hearsay at the probation violation hearing. See 

Commonwealth v. Milot, 462 Mass. 197, 201 (2012).
5

hearsay has "substantial indicia of reliability," a judge may 

consider

"(1) whether the evidence is based on personal knowledge or 

direct observation; (2) whether the evidence, if based on 

direct observation, was recorded close in time to the 

events in question; (3) the level of factual detail; (4) 

whether the statements are internally consistent; (5) 

whether the evidence is corroborated by information from 

other sources; (6) whether the declarant was disinterested 

when the statements were made; and (7) whether the 

statements were made under circumstances that support their 

veracity."

Hartfield, supra at 484.

At the probation violation hearing, the judge found that 

the Worcester police report was "factually detailed and 

reliable." The police report documented that the defendant's 

brother called the police and reported that while on the 

telephone with the defendant, the brother heard arguing; the 

brother reported that the defendant was drunk and aggressive. 

Responding officers spoke to the defendant, who admitted that he 

and his "girlfriend" had been drinking alcohol with others 

present. The defendant told police that he pushed his 

girlfriend to try to get her outside so they could discuss the 

matter privately. The officers then spoke to the alleged 

victim, who reported that the defendant pushed her once in the 

shoulder or chest area with both hands. After police arrested 

the defendant and placed him in a patrol wagon, the alleged 

victim disclosed that the defendant had also raped her.
6

We conclude that the judge did not abuse his discretion in 

determining that the police report contained substantial indicia 

of reliability warranting the judge to find by a preponderance 

of the evidence that the defendant had violated the probation 

condition not to violate the criminal laws. The police report 

documented statements from three witnesses: the defendant's 

brother, the defendant, and the alleged victim. Contrary to the 

defendant's argument the mere fact that those three witnesses'

statements were contained in a single police report did not make 

their statements any less reliable. Those statements were made 

soon after the events they described. The statements were 

detailed, and each corroborated the statements of the other two 

witnesses. Indeed, the defendant's own statement contained an 

admission to assault and battery.5 Cf. Commonwealth v. Simon, 57 

5 Of course, without the police officer present to testify, 

the police report containing the defendant's admission 

constituted hearsay. Here, however, it was reliable hearsay 

under the Hartfield test.
7

Mass. App. Ct. 80, 85-86 (2003) (violation based in part on 

probationer's own admission contained in police reports).

Order revoking probation 

affirmed.

By the Court (Henry, Grant & 

D'Angelo, JJ.6),

Assistant Clerk

Entered: July 31, 2024.

6 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.