SECOND DI VI SI ON M I LLER, P. J. , M A RKLE and LA ND, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w . ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

June 25, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 1 08. GRI GG v

. STA TE.
L A N D , J u d ge. J o hn Sc o tt G rigg ap p eals f ro m the trial c o u r t ’ s o rd er r e v ok ing his p ro batio n,
argu ing t hat his d u e p ro c e ss right to c o nf ro nt ad v erse w itnesses w as v io lated and that
inad miss a b le ev id enc e w as c o nsid ered d u ring t he r ev oc atio n hearing. W e granted Grigg’ s ap p lic atio n fo r d isc retio nary rev iew

. Fo r the f ollo w ing reaso ns, w e rev erse the
trial c o u rt’ s o rd er. A s a general ru le, “ [t]his c o u rt w ill no t interf ere w ith a rev o c atio n u nless there
has been a manif

est abu se o f d isc retio n o n t h e p art o f the trial c o u rt. ” (Pu nc tu atio n and f o o tno te o mitted

. ) D u

gger v . S ta te , 26 0 Ga. A pp . 843, 843 (581 SE2d 6 55) (2003).
This Co u rt w ill af

firm a p ro b atio n rev o c atio n if the rec o rd inc lu d es “ so me c o mp etentev id enc e to sho w that t he def end ant v io lated the terms o f his pro batio n in the sp ec if ic

manner c harged

. ” ( Citatio n o mitted

. ) Gri mes v . S ta t

e , 36 4 Ga. A pp . 51 8, 51 9 (87 5
SE2d 5 00) (2022)

. S ee O C GA § 42- 8- 34. 1

. M o reo v er, ev id e nc e p ro du c ed at a

rev o c atio n p ro c e e d i ng need o nly establish the v io latio ns o f p ro b atio n by a
p rep ond eranc e o f the ev id e nc e, a less stringent s tand ard than that requ ired t o su stain

a c riminal c o nv ic tio n. C

a ldwell v. S ta te , 327 Ga. A p p . 47 1 , 47 2 (7 58 SE2d 325) (201 4) (c iting OCGA § 42- 8- 34. 1 (b)).
The ev id enc e ad du c ed at the p ro batio n rev o c atio n hearing sho w s t hat in 201 7 , Grigg p led gu ilty to p o ssessio n o f methamp heta m i n e and p ossessio n o f a f irearm
d u ring t he c o m missio n o f a c rime. The trial c o urt sentenc ed Grigg t o a to t a l o f sev en
years, w ith the f

irst tw o years to be serv ed in c o nf inement, and t h e remaind er to be

serv e d on p ro batio n. On M arc h 7 , 2023, a w a rrant fo r Grigg’ s arrest w as issu ed o n the
basis that Grigg had v io lated the c o nd itio ns o f his pro batio n by ref u sing to p artic ip a t e in the Co astal Resid ential Su bstanc e A bu se Treatment ( “ RSA T” ). The w arrant w as signed by A m a n d a Cannad y of the D ep artment o f Co m mu nity Su p erv isio n (“ D CS” ).
Later that mo nth, the State f iled a p etitio n f

o r rev o catio n o f Grigg’ s p ro batio n o n the same basis, also signed by Cannad y.

2The ma tter p r o c eed e d to a p ro batio n rev o c atio n hearing a t w hic h the State

c alled O f f i c e r C a n nad y as its o nly w itness. Of f ic er Cannad y testif

ied that she w as
emp lo yed by the D CS a nd that she d oes no t wo r k f o r t he RSA T p ro gram o r the
D ep artment o f Co rrec tio ns. Of fic er Cannad y testif

ie d t h a t s h e w as aw are o f the RSA T
p ro gram, bu t she w as “no t qu ite su re” abo u t the exac t requ irements with w hic h a
p ro batio ner had to c o mp ly. She testif ied that the terms o f Grigg’ s pro batio n requ ired
him to c o mp lete the R SA T p ro gram and that his re m aining p ro batio n w o u ld be
terminated u p o n su c c essf ul c o mp letio n o f that p ro gram. Of fic er Can n ad y w a s f

irst

“ m ad e aw are that [Grigg] d id no t w a n t t o c o mp lete RSA T” r equ irements o n Febru ary 21 , 2023, w hen she rec eiv e d a f o rm titled “Geo rgia D e p a r tm e n t o f
Co rrec tio ns Of

f end er Ref

u sal Fo rm” (“ Ref

u sal Fo rm” ) f

ro m the D ep ar t m e n t o f
Co rrec tio ns. She w as then to ld to issu e a w arrant fo r his a rrest f o r h i s f a i l u re to

c o mp ly.
Of f ic e Cannad y t estif

ied that did no t sp eak w ith G rigg abo u t t he c o ntents o f the
Ref u sal Fo r m o r the ref

u s al in general and did no t w itness Grigg s i g n o r o t h erw ise

ac k no w led ge the Ref

u sal Fo rm. A cc o r d ing to the Ref u sal Fo rm, Grigg w as inf

o rmed

o f the c onsequ enc es o f ref using to c o m p lete the RSA T pro gram, ac k no w led ged tho se

3c o nsequ enc es, an d s i g n ed his name and p riso ner nu mber. The Ref u sal Fo rm also

c o ntains a s ignatu re line f o r a “ c o u nselo r” to sign as a witness. A ltho u gh this w itness signatu r e is illegible, Of

fic e r Cannad y testif

ied that it w as no t her signatu re. T he trial

c o u rt su s t a i n ed Grigg’ s o bj ec t io n to any testimo ny by Of f ic e r Cannad y regard ing Grigg’ s s p ec if

ic ac tio ns that resu lted in his f ailu re t o c o mp ly w ith the RSA T p ro gram. Grigg’ s co u nsel rep eat e d l y o b j ec ted to the ad m issio n o f the Ref usal Fo rm o n the gro u nd that it w a s inad m issible hearsay bec au se Cannad y, as the o nly w itness, had
neither signed the fo r m no r w itnessed its signing. T he State then rec alled Of f ic er Cannad y in an attemp t to lay t he f o u nd a tio n nec essary to intro du ce t he Ref u sal f o rm into ev id e nc e u nd er the bu siness rec ord s exc ep tio n to the hearsay ru le. See OCGA §
24- 8- 803 (6 ). The trial c o u rt allo w ed the Ref u sal Fo rm to c o m e into ev id enc e u nd er the bu s iness rec ord s e xc ep t io n o v er Grigg’ s o bj e ctio n. W ith the exc lu sio n o f Of f ic er Cannad y’ s testimo ny regard ing Grigg’ s behav io r at the RSA T p ro gram, the Ref u sal
Fo rm w as the o nly ev id e nc e a d mitted a t the rev o c atio n hearing sho w ing that Grigg d id

no t c o m p lete the RSA T p ro gram. A f ter the c lo s e o f the State’ s ev id enc e, Grigg then mad e a n u nsw o rn statement

to the trial c o u rt in su p p o rt o f mitigatio n o f h i s s e n t enc e. D u ring this u nsw o rn

4statement, 1 Grig g argu e d that he signed the Ref u sal Fo rm bec au se he had been

ac c e p ted into a ministry- ru n resid ential rehabilitatio n p ro gram af ter he had begu n the
RSA T p ro gram and that he so u ght to be transf erred there instead

. Thereaf t er, the trial c o u rt f

o u nd that the State had met its bu rd en o f p ro v ing by

a p rep o nd eranc e o f the ev id e nc e that Grigg v io lated the terms o f hi s p r o b atio n by
ref u sing t o c o mp lete the R SA T p ro gram and rev o k ed tw o years o f Grigg’ s p ro batio n. The trial c o u rt d id no t inqu ire into the issu e o f w hether there w a s go o d cau se f o r no t allo w ing the right o f c o nf ro ntatio n, and it d id no t c o nd uc t an examinatio n o f the
Stat e’ s r easo ns fo r f

ailing t o p ro d u c e a w itness f ro m RSA T o r the reliability o f the hearsay ev id enc e. W e granted Grigg’ s ap p lic atio n f o r a disc r etio nary ap p eal f ro m that

o rd er.
1

. G rigg co ntend s t hat his d u e p ro cess right of c o nf r o ntatio n to cro ss- examine
ad v erse w itnesses w as v io lated w hen tho s e ad v e rse w itnesses failed to ap pear d u ring the p ro batio n rev o c a tio n hearing w itho u t go o d c au s e sho w n. W e agree.

1 See Bell v. Au sti

n , 27 8 Ga. 844, 844 (1 ) (a) (6 07 SE2d 56 9 ) (2005) ( “u nsw o rn statements are no t treated as amo u nting to any ev id e nc e, ex c ep t i n sp ec if ied c ases f ro m nec essity” ) (c itatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).
5The Co nf r ontatio n Clau se o f the Sixth A m end ment, m a d e ap p lic able to the

states thro u gh the Fo urteenth A mend ment, gu arantees a criminal d ef end ant the right

“ t o be c onf

ro nted w ith the w itnesses against him. ” Und e r t he Co nf ro ntatio n Clau se, testimo nial hearsay is ad m issible against a c riminal d ef end ant o nly w hen (a) w itness
is u nav ailable to testif

y and (b) the d e f

end a nt had a p rio r o pp o rtu nity to cro ss- examine
the w itness. Cra wfo rd v . Wa s hi n gto n , 541 U. S. 36 , 53- 54 (I II ) (1 24 S Ct 1 354, 1 58 SE2d

1 7 7) (2004).
N ev ertheless, “ in a pro batio n rev o c atio n hearing, the right t o c o nf ro nt ad v e r se

w itnesses aris e s n o t u nd er the Co nf ro ntatio n Clau se, bu t rather as a matter o f d u e
p ro c ess, w hic h is less stringent than the co nf ro ntatio n gu arantee in a c riminal trial. ” (Citatio n o mitted .) Gri

mes , 36 4 Ga. A p p . at 5 20. The “ minimu m requ irements o f d u e
p ro c ess inc lu d e the right to c o nf ro nt and c ro ss- examine ad v erse w itnesses (u nless the hearing o f

f ic er s p e c i f

ic ally f ind s go o d c au se f

or no t allo w ing the c o nf

ro ntatio n). ” (Citatio n and emp hasis o m i t ted

. ) I d

. 2 Thu s, t he p r o batio ner mu st mak e so me

2 See also Mo rri

s ey v . Brewer , 408 U. S. 47 1 , 489 (I I I ) (b) (9 2 SCt 259 3, 33 LE2d 484) (1 9 72) (minimu m requ irements o f d u e p ro c ess ow ed to p a r o lees inc lu d e the right to c o nf ro nt a d v e r s e w i t nesses u nless t he hearing o f fic er f ind s go o d c au se f

o r no t allo w ing su c h); G

a gn o n v . S ca rpelli , 41 1 U. S. 7 7 8, 7 81

- 7 82 ( II ) (9 3 SCt 1 756 , 36 LE2d 6 56 ) (1 9 7 3) (ap p lying d u e p ro c ess mand ates set f o r th i n Mo rri

s ey to p ro batio n rev o c atio n p ro ceed ings).
6“ s p ec if

ic o bj ec t i o n o r inv o c atio n o f the d u e p ro c ess right

. . . in o r d er to trigger

c o nsid eratio n o f the sec o nd a ry issu e of w hether there w a s go od c au s e f o r no t allo w ing
the c o nf ro ntatio n, whic h u su ally requ ires examinatio n of bo th the reas o n s f o r the
State’ s f a ilu re to p ro d u c e the d ec larant and the r eliablity of the hearsay e v i d e n c e. ” (Pu nc tu a tio n o mitted

. ) Gri mes , 36 4 Ga. A p p . a t 5 20, citing W i lli a ms v. La wren ce , 27 3
Ga. 29 5 , 29 8 (540 SE2d 5 9 9 ) (2001 ). The State bears the bu r d en o f p ro v ing that hearsay ev id enc e b e ars a “ s u f fic ient ind ic ia o f reliability to withstand d u e p ro c ess

sc ru tiny. ” Gri

mes , 36 4 Ga. A p p . at 520- 521

. I n Gri mes , su p ra, the State p etitio ned to rev o k e the d ef end ant’ s p ro batio n f

o r the c o mmissio n o f new o f f enses o f aggrav a ted assau lt a nd terro ristic threats w hen he
ap p eared a t th e h o u s e o f tw o named v ic tims and threatened to harm them. 36 4 Ga.
A p p . at 51 9

. The v ic tims d id no t ap p ear a t the p ro batio n rev o c atio n hearing; rather,
the r e s p o n d ing o f

fic er t estif

ied t o o ne v ic tim’ s statements that he p erso nally

w itnessed and observ ed while resp o nd ing t o the sc ene. Id

. at 51 9- 520. The trial c o urt

o v e r r u l e d t he d ef

end a nt’ s o bj ec tio ns to this o f f ic er’ s t e stimo ny o n d u e p ro c ess an d hearsay c o n c erns and rev o k ed his p ro batio n. This Co u rt rev ersed the trial c o u rt’ s

o rd er, in p a rt, be c au se the trial c o u rt “ f ailed to examine the reaso ns f o r t he State’ s

7f

ailu re to p ro du c e the v ic tims” f o r go o d c au se. Id

. at 5 22. See also W a re v . S ta te , 289
G a . A p p . 86 0, 86 3 (6 58 SE2d 441 ) (2008) (w hen p ro batio ner raised d u e p r o c e s s

c o nc e rns at p r o batio n rev o c atio n p r o c eed ing, t rial co u r t “ s ho u ld a lso hav e c onsid ered
the s ec ond a r y i s s u e o f w hether there w as go o d c au se f o r no t allo w ing the

c o nf ro ntatio n” ). Similarly to Gri

mes , su p ra, the trial c o urt in this case f ailed t o examine w hether
the State had a go o d rea s o n f o r its f ailu r e to p ro vid e a w itness w ith f irst- hand
k no w led ge o f Grigg’ s ref u sal to c o m p lete t he RSA T p ro gram. Grigg’ s c o u nsel

o bj ec ted to Of

f ic e r C a n n a d y ’ s testimo ny and the ad missio n o f the Ref u sal Fo rm

mu ltip le times as v io lating his d u e pro c ess right to co nf ro nt the w itness against him.
The trial c o u rt o v erru led t he obj ec tio n. In so r u ling, the trial c o u rt d id no t examine

—

no r d id the State p resent

– - any ev id enc e to exp lain why the State f ailed to pro v id e a

w itness w ho w a s emp lo yed by the D ep artment of Co rrec tio ns o r the RSA T p ro gram

o r so meo ne w ho o t herw ise had f irst- hand k no w led ge o f G r i g g ’s ref u sal to co mp ly w ith
the RSA T p ro gram o r his signing o f the d o c u ment. The so le testimo ny that sp o k e to the reliability o f t he Ref

u sal Fo rm w as Of

fic er Cannad y, w ho w as no t emp lo y ed by the
RSA T or the D ep artment o f Co rrec tio ns, w as no t p resent w hen the f o r m w a s signed

8o r a ck no w led ged , d id no t sign the f o rm herself

, had no p erso nal kno wled ge regard ing Grigg’ s alleged singing o f t he Ref u sal Fo rm, and had limited k no w led ge o f basic f ac ts

o f the RSA T p ro gram. Relying o n sev e ral f

ed eral c irc u it c o u rt o f ap p eal c ases, 3 the State inv ites u s to

re- v isit the requ irement that a t r i a l c o u r t mu st d etermine whether there w as “ go o d

c au se” f o r f ailing to p ro v id e a p r o b a t i o n e r w ith t he a bility t o c o nf ro nt and c ro ssexamine ad v erse witnesses against him bef o re it m ay ad m it hearsa y statements in a
p ro batio n rev o catio n p ro ceed ing. W e d ec line the inv itatio n as the Geo r gia c o u rts hav e

c o nsistently u sed the same f ramew o rk w hic h requ ires the analysis f o r go o d c au se as
p art o f the d u e pro c e ss r ight o f c o nf ro ntatio n. See e. g. , W

i lli a ms , 27 3 Ga. at 29 8;
Gri mes v . S ta t

e , 36 4 Ga. A p p . at 520- 501 ; W a re , 289 Ga. A p p . at 86 2- 86 3.

3 See e. g. Un i t

ed S ta tes v . S i

mmo ns , 81 2 F. 2d 56 1 , 56 4 ( I I ) ( 9 t h Cir. 1 9 87 ) (ad missio n at p ro b a t io n rev o c atio n hearing o f c o p ies o f ho sp ital rec o rd s p rep ared by d ef end ant’ s attend ing physic ian and staf f , and d eni a l o f d e fend ant’ s o p p o r tu nity to c o nf ro nt and cro s s- examine ho sp ital p erso nnel, w as no t p lain err o r d esp ite trial c o u rt’ s f ailu re to inqu ire if the State had go o d cau se f o r no t p ro v id ing these witnesses
w hen “ c a s es a l s o su ggest that the reliability o f ev id enc e may p ro v id e a basis f o r its ad missio n” ). Bu t see Un i ted S ta tes v . Fergu s o n , 7 52 F. 3d 6 1 3, 61 7 (I I ) ( 4th Cir. 201 4) (reliability o f hearsay ev id e nc e c anno t be the beginning and the end o f the interest o f j u stic e analysis, in d etermining w hether go o d c au s e exists to d eny d ef end ant his p ro c ed ural right to c o nf

ro nt and c ro ss- examine a w itness in a rev o c atio n hearing).

9B e c au se Grigg sp e c if ic ally inv o ked his d u e p ro c ess right o f c o nf r o ntatio n and
bec au se the trial c o urt f

ailed to examine the reaso ns f o r the State’ s f

ailu re to p ro d u c e

a c o mp etent w itness to testif y regard ing the RSA T R e fu sal Fo rm, we find that Of f ic e Cannad y’ s testimo ny and the Ref u sal Fo rm w ere e r ro neo usly ad m itted

. See Gri mes , 36 4 Ga. A p p . at 522.
2. M o reo v er, t he State f

ailed to meet its bu rd en of p ro v in g t h a t t he Ref u sal
Fo rm ev id enc e f

ell und e r t he b usiness rec o rd exc ep tio n to hearsay w hen there w as no testimo ny o r o ther ev id enc e p resented that the State’ s so le witness w a s emp lo yed by,

asso c iated w ith, o r f

amiliar w ith the internal p ro c ed u res o f the RSA T p ro gram.

“ Hearsay ev id enc e has no p r o b a t iv e v alu e a nd is inad missible in a p ro batio n

rev o c atio n p ro c e ed ing. ” Co u ch v . S t a t e , 246 Ga. A pp . 1 06 , 1 07 (2) (539 SE2d 6 09 ) (2000). This Co u rt rev iew s a trial c o u rt’ s ru ling as to w hether c ertain ev id enc e

c o nstitu tes hearsay f

o r an abu se o f disc retio n. Bea v ers v . S ta te , 346 Ga. A p p . 37 3, 37 8 (2) (81 6 SE2d 384) (201 8).
To intro d u c e a w riting u nd er t he bu siness rec ord s exc ep tio n to the hearsay ru le (OCGA § 24- 8- 803 (6 )), “ a w itness mu st lay a f o u nd atio n ind ic ating that he o r she is

aw are o f the metho d o f k eep ing the d o cu m e nts. ” (Fo o tno te o mitted

. ) S a n ta n a v .

10S ta te , 283 Ga. A p p . 6 96 , 6 9 8 ( 1 ) (6 42 SE2d 39 0) (2007 ) ( citing f o rmer OCGA § 24- 3-
1 4). See Mi

l ler v . S ta te , 26 6 Ga. 850, 854 (3) ( 4 7 2 SE2d 74) (1 9 9 6 ) (altho u gh

c ertif ic ate might hav e been a rec o rd mad e in the r egu lar c o urse o f bu siness as a rec o rd

o f an ev ent, it w as no t ad missible as a b u siness rec ord witho ut a f o u nd atio n b eing laid
thro u gh the testimo ny of a w itness w ho is familiar w ith the metho d of k eep ing rec o rd s and w ho c an sho w that the entry w a s m a d e i n t he regu lar c o u rse o f b u siness). “ I t is

no t requ ired t hat the w itness mad e t h e rec o rd s o r k ep t them u nd e r his o r her

su p erv isio n o r c ontro l. I nstead , the w itness mu st be a ble to testif y that t he rec o rd w as mad e (1 ) in the regu lar c o u rse o f bu siness, and (2) at the time o f the e vent o r w ithin

a r e aso nable time o f the ev ent. ” (Citatio n and p u nc tu atio n o mitted

. ) S tro b el v . S ta te , 322 Ga. A p p . 56 9 , 57 1 (7 45 SE2d 7 9 6 ) (201 3) (c iting f o r mer OCGA § 24- 3- 1 4).
H ere, the State f

a iled to lay a p ro per f

o u n d atio n to hav e Of

f ic er Cannad y intro d u c e the R e f

u sal Fo rm u nd er the bu siness rec o r d exc ep t io n to the hearsay r u le.
I t is u nd isp u ted that Of

f ic er Cannad y, the State’ s o nly witness, w as no t asso c iated

w ith RSA T (the agenc y that o v ersaw Grigg’ s partic ip atio n in the p ro gram), w as no t

asso c iated w ith the D ep a rtment o f Co rrec tio ns (the a genc y that c reated the Ref u sal
Fo rm), d id no t hav e any k no w led ge a bo u t w h e n t h e R e fu sal Fo rms w as s igned , and

11d id no t w itness Grigg sign the d o c u ment. Theref o re, the State has no t p ro v en that
Of f ic er Cannad y w as f

a miliar w ith w hether the R e f u sal Fo rm w as mad e in the c o u r se

o f bu siness o r w ithin a reaso nable time af t er the ev ent. Co mp are Jo n es v . S t a t e , 3 45
Ga. Ap p . 1 4, 1 8- 1 9 (2) ( b ) ( 8 12 SE2d 337 ) (201 8) (inv e s tigato r w ho had b een emp lo y ed

as a d ep u t

y w ith the sherif

f ’s o f f ic e an d w h o h ad p erso nal k no w led ge o f the
inv e stigatio n in the c ase w as a ble to lay a p ro p er f ou nd atio n f

o r into xilyz e r p rinto u t

c ard s)

. B e c au se the State elic ited no testimo ny to i n d i c a te that its only w itness w as
emp lo yed by, asso c iated w ith, o r f amiliar w ith the internal p ro c ed u r es o f the agenc y

a t i s s u e o r w ith that agenc y’ s rec o rd k eep ing, we c anno t f ind that the State laid a
p ro p e r f o u nd atio n t o a d mit the Ref u sal Fo rm a s a bu siness rec o rd s hearsay exc ep tio n. A c c o rd ingly, the trial c o u rt erred by basing its rev o c atio n d ec isi o n o n the Ref u sal
Fo rm. See, e. g. , Hen ley v . S ta te , 31 7 Ga. A p p . 7 7 6 , 7 7 8 (1 ) (a) (7 32 SE2d 836 ) (201 2) (rev ersi n g rev o c atio n o f p ro batio n w hen the trial c o u rt relied so lely o n inad missible hearsay).
Ju dgmen t rev ers ed. Mi

ller, P. J. , a n d Ma rkle, J. , co n cu r .

12