NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its 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 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

22-P-42

COMMONWEALTH

vs.

DARRYLE D. MCCLURE.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The defendant appeals from an order of a judge of the 

District Court revoking his probation. He asserts that the 

judge abused his discretion when he relied on a police report 

containing hearsay statements to conclude that the defendant 

violated his probation by committing new offenses. He also 

argues that the evidence did not support the judge's finding 

that he also violated the conditions of his probation by failing

to complete a class in anger management and by not reporting to 

probation as required. We affirm.

Background. On November 13, 2017, the defendant pleaded 

guilty to various offenses in Taunton District Court and 

received a committed sentence as well as probation.1 While he 

1 More specifically, the defendant received eleven concurrent 

sentences of two years, with six months to be served and the 

balance suspended for three years with probation.
2

was on probation, the defendant was charged with two offenses,

assault and battery and strangulation, stemming from a violent 

altercation with his girlfriend at the Fairfield Marriott Hotel

in Walpole on May 21, 2020. The defendant was alleged to be in 

violation of his probation by virtue of the new charges, failing 

to successfully complete an anger management program, and 

failing to report to his probation officer within forty-eight 

hours after he was accidentally released from jail.

The defendant's probation officer, Jennifer Anderson, was 

the only witness who testified at the defendant's violation

hearing. She testified about the defendant's conditions of 

probation and the alleged violations as follows. With regard to 

the condition that the defendant complete a course on anger 

management, Anderson relayed that the defendant had completed 

three out of twelve classes. With respect to the allegation 

that the defendant failed to report to probation, Anderson 

explained that the defendant was accidentally released from 

prison and that once she learned of the situation, she spoke 

with him and instructed him to report to the Taunton District 

Court, which the defendant failed to do. As regards the 

condition that the defendant not commit any new offenses,

Anderson introduced (1) a police report detailing the events 

underlying the new charges written by Officer William Mitchell 

of the Walpole police department; (2) a report setting forth the 
3

coordinates from the defendant's GPS monitor on the date of the 

alleged new offense; (3) booking information from the Fairfield 

Marriott Hotel indicating that the defendant had reserved a room 

for three days, including the date of the new offense; and 

(4) video footage depicting the defendant hitting the victim 

provided by the hotel.

The defendant offered no evidence at the hearing. He 

argued, among other things, that the hearsay statements 

contained within Mitchell's report were not sufficiently 

reliable to support a finding of a probation violation and that 

the defendant could not be identified as the person depicted in 

the video. Defense counsel also informed the judge that the 

defendant had been found not guilty of the new offenses.

The judge found that the defendant had violated the 

conditions of his probation by committing new crimes, by failing 

to complete an anger management program, and by failing to 

report to his probation officer after his release from jail. 

The judge acknowledged in his written and verbal findings that 

his decision was based on hearsay evidence that he found to be 

substantially reliable.

Discussion. "A defendant on probation is subject to a 

number of conditions, the breach of any one of which constitutes

a violation of his probation." Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 

Mass. 108, 111 (1990). "A determination whether a violation of 
4

probation has occurred lies within the discretion of the hearing 

judge." Commonwealth v. Bukin, 467 Mass. 516, 519-520 (2014). 

Probation revocation hearings are not subject to the strict 

rules of evidence, Durling, supra at 114, and hearsay evidence 

is admissible if it is substantially reliable. See Commonwealth

v. Hartfield, 474 Mass. 474, 484 (2016) (setting forth the 

appropriate factors to consider in determining whether hearsay 

is reliable).

We begin with the defendant's claim that the judge relied 

on unreliable hearsay in finding that he violated his probation 

by committing new crimes. Contrary to the defendant's 

assertion, the hearsay statements attributed to Mitchell, as set 

forth in his police report, were based on his personal knowledge 

and direct observations, which were "recorded close in time to 

the events in question." The statements were "factually 

detailed and internally consistent," and information was 

provided by disinterested witnesses "in circumstances that would 

support the veracity of the source."2 The judge further observed 

that Anderson identified the defendant in the video.

2 The judge found:

"[the police report] is based either on personal knowledge 

or direct observation. What I mean by that is that the 

police officer is observing the alleged victim in the case 

and making observations of her and her demeaner and what 

she appears like and injuries that she appeared to have,

while also listening to her account of what she says 
5

These circumstances coupled with the description of the 

victim's demeanor and her partial statement as reported by 

Mitchell, which was corroborated by the video, the statement of 

the hotel's front office manager, and to some degree by the GPS 

data leads us to conclude "that the proffered evidence was 

imbued with sufficient indicia of reliability to warrant a 

denial of the defendant's limited right to cross-examination."

Durling, 407 Mass. at 120.3

Because we have determined that the evidence supported the 

judge's finding that the defendant had violated his probation by 

committing new crimes, we need not address the judge's findings 

that the defendant had violated his probation also by failing to 

complete an anger management program and by failing to report to 

his probation officer after he was accidentally released from 

prison. We nonetheless conclude that the evidence supported 

both violations. Anderson's testimony provided a sufficient 

basis on which the judge could conclude by a preponderance of 

the evidence that, despite the pandemic and his incarceration,

happened. Those observations were recorded close in time 

to the events in question. They are provided by a 

disinterested witness. They are provided in circumstances 

that would support the veracity of the source. It is 

factually detailed and internally consistent."

3 Although Mitchell's police report contained hearsay within 

hearsay, the judge did not abuse his discretion by relying on 

this "totem pole" hearsay because he first made a determination 

that the hearsay contained sufficient indicia of reliability.
6

the defendant failed to complete a course in an anger management

program. The judge was not required to accept the defendant's 

claim that circumstances beyond his control (pandemic and 

incarceration) prevented him from fulfilling this obligation.

Similarly, the judge was warranted in concluding by a 

preponderance of the evidence that Anderson had informed the 

defendant that he was required to report to court (probation) 

upon his accidental release from jail as his probation officer 

instructed, and that the defendant failed to do so.

Order revoking probation

affirmed.

By the Court (Vuono, Henry & 

Grant, JJ.4),

Clerk

Entered: May 1, 2023.

4 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.