Title: Lusardi v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 190, 2006
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
KIRT A. LUSARDI 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
No.190, 2006 
 
Defendant Below-   
 
§ 
Appellant,  
 
 
§ 
Court Below:  Superior Court 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
of the State of Delaware in and 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
for New Castle County 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
§ 
ID#0503014333  
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
Plaintiff-Below, 
 
 
§ 
 
Appellee. 
 
 
 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
§ 
 
Submitted:  August 30, 2006 
   Decided:  November 1, 2006 
 
Before HOLLAND, BERGER, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
(1)  
Appellant Kirt A. Lusardi appeals the revocation of his probation by 
the Superior Court after he tested positive for marijuana, cocaine and methadone 
on three occasions.  Lusardi argues that the evidence introduced at the violation of 
probation hearing was insufficient to support the trial judge’s finding of a violation 
because it was uncorroborated hearsay evidence.  We find no merit in his argument 
and affirm. 
(2)  
Lusardi pled guilty in July 2005 to Reckless Burning or Exploding 
and was placed on probation for one year.  As a condition of his probation, Lusardi 
was required to submit to random drug testing.  Urine samples were taken from 
 2
Lusardi on November 3, 2005, December 7, 2005 and January 4, 2006.  On each 
occasion, the tests indicated the presence of marijuana, cocaine and methadone.      
(3)  
Lusardi’s probation officer filed a violation of probation report on 
February 2, 2006.  A violation of probation hearing was held on April 7, 2006.  
Both Lusardi and his probation officer testified at the hearing.  The probation 
officer testified that she completed the “necessary paperwork and then Lusardi was 
escorted to the restroom in which the urine specimen was given.  And at that time 
[Lusardi was] supervised by a male probation officer at the time he [gave] the 
specimen.”  She also produced the lab report showing the positive results to the 
trial judge.  Lusardi denied taking any illegal drugs.  He explained he had been 
injured and was taking percocet, endocet and oxycontin as prescribed.  Based on 
the testimony presented and the lab reports, the trial judge found Lusardi in 
violation of his probation. 
(4)  
Because probation is an “act of grace,” a “VOP judge has broad 
discretionary power when deciding whether or not to revoke probation.”1  Thus, we 
review violations of probation for abuse of discretion.2   
(5)  
It is well settled that a probationer does not have the panoply of rights 
that are afforded to a defendant at trial.  For example, proof beyond a reasonable 
                                          
 
1 Kurzmann v. State, 903 A.2d 702, 716 (Del. 2006). 
2 Id. 
 3
doubt is not necessary to find a probationer in violation.3  Instead, the State need 
only show by a preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred by 
presenting “some competent evidence to prove the violation asserted” such that it 
“reasonably satisf[ies] the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as 
good as required by the conditions of probation.”4  Additionally, hearsay is 
admissible at violation of probation hearings.5  Probation cannot be revoked, 
however “solely upon the basis of testimony of a witness with ‘no first-hand 
knowledge of the events constituting the violations.’”6    
(6)  
Lusardi argues that the trial judge abused his discretion by finding 
him in violation “based upon what can properly be characterized as ‘rank’ 
hearsay.”7  He argues that Collins v. State8 requires a reversal in this case.  It does 
not. 
(7)  
In Collins, the defendant was charged with violating his probation by 
committing burglary, criminal mischief and terroristic threatening.9  The only 
evidence presented at the violation hearing was the testimony of a police officer.10  
                                          
 
3 Id. 
4 Collins v. State, 897 A.2d 159, 160 (Del. 2006). 
5 Id. 
6 Id. at 160-61. 
7 Appellant’s Opening Br., at 6.  
8 897 A.2d 159 (Del. 2006) 
9 Id. at 160. 
10 Id. 
 4
The officer testified that he interviewed the defendant’s ex-girlfriend who told him 
that Collins had come to her home and committed various acts of destruction.11  He 
also testified that another tenant in the apartment complex told him that she saw 
Collins throw a beer can down the steps and heard him threaten his ex-girlfriend 
before leaving the building.12  This Court reversed the revocation of Collins’ 
probation, holding that “probation cannot be revoked solely upon the basis of 
testimony of a witness with ‘no first-hand knowledge of the events constituting the 
violations.’”13 
(8)  
Here, the probation officer who oversaw the testing of Lusardi 
explained in detail about how the urine specimens were taken.  Specifically, she 
filled out the paperwork while a male probation officer went into the bathroom 
with Lusardi to take the sample.  In Collins, the officer testified about physical 
damage to an apartment that did not connect Collins to the crime.  Here, the 
probation officer oversaw the testing of Lusardi which resulted in a positive drug 
test report.  In Collins the State relied upon Hester v. State.14  We distinguished 
Hester on its facts but also reiterated the essential holding of that case which is 
directly applicable here.  “In Hester the defendant’s positive drug test report in the 
                                          
 
11 Id. 
12 Collins, 897 A.2d at 160 
13 Id. at 160-61. 
14 2002 WL 243323 (Del. Feb. 13, 2002). 
 5
record and the case manager’s testimony that she oversaw the administration of the 
test were sufficient competent evidence to revoke probation”.15  Consistent with 
Hester, we conclude that there was competent evidence to support a finding that 
Lusardi violated the conditions of his probation. 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
 
                                          
 
15 Collins, 897 A.2d at 161 fn. 11.