Court Opinion

ID: 9796311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:55:02.740591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:55.642956
License: Public Domain

Justice EID,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
In concluding that Loveall violated the "no contact with any child" condition of his probation,14 the trial court relied on a notarized letter from a nurse who stated that she saw Loveall at the door of his wife's hospital room and that he told her he was waiting to see his wife and baby. The U.S. Supreme Court has expressly permitted the admission of such letters at probation hearings where "good cause" is shown. Here, the "good cause" standard is satisfied because the notarized letter was sufficiently reliable and because Loveall never denied or otherwise challenged the nurse's description of the incident. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority's opinion finding that Loveall's due process rights were violated at his probation revocation hearing.
There is no dispute that Loveall was in his wife's hospital room at the same time the baby was in the room; Loveall, his wife, and his wife's grandmother all testified to that fact.15 There is also no dispute that, according to his own testimony, Loveall knew that he was not to be in the room with the baby."16 The only question was whether Loveall knowingly placed himself in a situation where prohibited contact with the baby would occur.
As to that issue, Loveall testified that he had fallen asleep in his wife's room and *420awakened to find the baby present. See maj. op. at 411. The trial court, however, rejected Loveall's "accidental" contact theory. Specifically, the court concluded that Loveall "clearly had contact with the child when he was in the room and he knew he shouldn't have and he was aware of the violation...." The court pointed to Exhibit 4, a notarized letter from Naney Mann, a nurse at the hospital. In the letter, Mann stated that she saw Loveall outside his wife's room and asked him if she could help him with anything, and he responded: "I'm here to visit my wife and baby, but I have to wait." (Emphasis added.) The court concluded from this statement that Loveall "was clearly there [outside his wife's room] to visit the baby. It was not contradicted he did in fact make that statement." Importantly, while the majority does not consider the trial court's actual findings, it is clear that the Mann letter was the only hearsay evidence the court relied upon to reach the conclusion that Loveall violated the "no contact" condition.17
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that evidence admitted at a probation hearing need not meet the evidentiary requirements of a eriminal trial. According to the Court, "the process [for probation revocation] should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters, affidavits, and other material that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial." Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (parole); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 & n. 5, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) (adopting Morrissey in probation context). Under Morrissey and Gagnon, due process requires that the defendant have "the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation)[.]" Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593.18 This "good cause" requirement is satisfied when the hearsay evidence in question-here, the notarized Mann letter-is deemed sufficiently reliable. See, e.g., United States v. Kelley, 446 F.3d 688, 692-98 (7th Cir.2006); Kell v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 26 F.3d 1016, 1020 (10th Cir.1994); Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 441-43 (Ind.2007); Harris v. United States, 612 A.2d 198, 201-02 (D.C.1992).19
As applied in this case, the trial court did not err in considering the Mann letter because it was sufficiently reliable. As was established at the hearing, the letter was notarized. While Loveall objected to the letter on the ground that it was hearsay, he did not give any reason to conclude that the letter was of questionable reliability. In fact, when Loveall's counsel sought to contradict the testimony of Loveall's probation officer that Mann saw Loveall holding the baby, he pointed to the fact that the statements in the letter were more reliable than the probation officer's recounting of the conversation because the letter was notarized. And while the majority may be correct that Loveall's use of the letter to support his case does not, as a technical matter, waive his due process objection, maj. op. at 415-16, his use of the letter does demonstrate the fact that he considered the statements in the letter to be reliable. Most importantly, as the trial court pointed out, Loveall never denied making the *421statement to Mann or otherwise challenged her description of the incident; nor does he make such a challenge in his appeal to us.20 See, e.g., United States v. Penn, 721 F.2d 762, 766 (11th Cir.1983) (finding no abuse of discretion in trial court's admission of hearsay evidence at probation revocation hearing where defendant "d[id] not deny, and did not controvert in any way, the charge that he had had illegal drugs in his body on the specific occasions alleged" but rather sought "to rely on his asserted right to confront and cross-examine the [hearsay declarants]"); Harris, 612 A.2d at 202 (finding no error where court found report from drug treatment program was sufficiently reliable where "appellant never denied using illegal drugs"). In sum, Supreme Court precedent specifically contemplates that letters of this very sort will be admissible in probation hearings, and the trial court properly relied on the Mann letter in this case. See, e.g., United States v. McCallum, 677 F.2d 1024, 1025-26 (4th Cir.1982) (finding letter from drug treatment provider regarding defendant's drug use to be reliable); Reyes, 868 N.E.2d at 442-43 (finding that hearsay statement in affidavit was reliable, given the expertise and personal knowledge of the affiant); Commonwealth v. Calvo, 41 Mass.App.Ct. 903, 668 N.E.2d 846, 848 (1996) (finding that sworn statement by witness with personal knowledge was substantially reliable and therefore admissible in probation revocation proceeding).21
The majority does not consider the propriety of the trial court's reliance on the letter. Instead, it suggests that the Morrissey good cause requirement would not apply in this case because Loveall's probation was revoked due to an alleged noneriminal act in violation of a condition of probation, as opposed to an alleged commission of a crime. Maj. op. at 415 (concluding that cross-examination of probation officer is sufficient to satisfy dictates of due process in case involving alleged non-criminal act in violation of probation condition). While the majority's rationale may square conflicting court of appeals precedent, see maj. op. at 414-15, I agree with Justice Coats that it does not square with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, see cone. & dis. op. at 418.22 In sum, while I believe Loveall's due process rights to confront witnesses required that the proffered hearsay evidence be reliable, I find that those rights are satisfied in this case.
I also take issue with the ultimate basis for the majority's ruling-namely, that a new revocation hearing is necessary in this case because Loveall was not provided with sufficient notice consistent with due process that the prosecution would introduce the Mann letter at the hearing. I agree with Justice Coats that there is no obligation that the prosecution give notice to the defendant of every piece of hearsay evidence it intends to introduce at the hearing. See conc. & dis. op. at 419; Kell, 26 F.3d at 1022-23 (holding that "in the context of parole revocation, due process does not require advance disclosure of all the information the Commission might consider as a basis for exceeding the [sentencing] guidelines," on the ground that, inter alia, such advance notice "would seem to *422entail an extensive pre-revocation hearing review of a parolee's file to identify all information the Commission might [consider]").23
Because I would reverse the court of appeals and reinstate the trial court's revocation of Loveall's probation, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority's opinion finding that Loveall's due process rights were violated at his probation revocation hearing.

. Although Loveall challenged the validity of this condition before the court of appeals, he did not renew that issue before us, and as the majority does not address it, nor do I.

. The prosecution asked Loveall's wife: "You and your husband and the baby [were] all present [in the room]?" Loveall's wife answered, "Yes." The wife's grandmother testified that she and Loveall "went back that afternoon and visited with [Loveall's wife} and they brought the baby in." Loveall testified that he was sitting in a chair in the room and fell asleep, and that when he awoke the baby was present.s

. The prosecutor asked: "So you knew you were not to be in the room with the child." Loveall answered, "Yes."

. Like the majority, the court of appeals failed to differentiate the Mann letter, which the trial court expressly relied upon, from other hearsay evidence presented at the hearing. See People v. Loveall, 203 P.3d 540, 546 (Colo.App.2008) (concluding that [whithout the hearsay evidence, the trial court could not have found that Loveall knowingly violated the 'no contact' condition" (emphasis added)).

. The right of a probationer to confront witnesses against him is rooted in the Due Process Clause, not the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, because the Sixth Amendment right is limited to criminal prosecutions. See United States v. Kelley, 446 F.3d 688, 691 (7th Cir.2006) (rejecting defendant's argument that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), overruled Morrissey and Gagnon and finding that any right to confront witnesses at a probation hearing is rooted in due process, not the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses in a criminal trial).

. I agree with Justice Coats that section 16-1 206(3)'s reference to "a fair opportunity to rebut hearsay evidence" refers only to the "exclusionary rules of evidence" -that is, constitutional exclusionary rules. Conc. & dis. op. at 419 (citing § 16-11-206(3), CRS. (2009). The statute therefore does not impose an independent basis for challenging the use of hearsay evidence in probation hearings. Id. at 418-19.

. I would find the court's statement that it would rely on Mann's letier because the account of the incident was unchallenged by Loveall to satisfy the requirement that the court find good cause. See Kelley, 446 F.3d at 693 n. 4 (noting that there is a split in authority on whether an express finding of good cause is required and collecting cases).

. Some jurisdictions interpret "good cause" to mean that, in addition to showing that hearsay evidence is reliable, the prosecution must show good cause for why it did not produce the witness. See Reyes, 868 N.E.2d at 441 (describing alternate approach); see also id. (declining to adopt alternate approach as too burdensome). This alternate approach is satisfied in this case because the probation hearing was held in the 18th Judicial District, whereas the events that were the subject of the hearing in this case occurred in the 11th Judicial District. See Commonwealth v. Durling, 407 Mass. 108, 551 N.E.2d 1193, 1198 (1990) (finding that good cause was satisfied where defendant's probation revocation hearing was held in Norfolk County, and the events that were the subject of the hearing occurred in Bristol County, and concluding that requiring witnesses to travel to Norfolk County was a "heav{y]" burden).

. The majority appears to rely on Durling, 551 N.E.2d at 1196, for its conclusion that the good cause need not be found. See maj. op. at 415 n. 8. Yet Durling involved an extensive analysis of when good cause exists to rely on hearsay evidence. See, e.g., 551 N.E.2d at 1199 (noting that courts must assess reliability of the evidence in determining good cause).

. I also agree with Justice Coats, see conc. & dis. op. at 419, that there is no evidence in the record to support the majority's assertion that the prosecution made a "decision to withhold the names of the declarants until shortly before the hearing," maj. op. at 416. As the record makes clear, while the probation department may have had the Mann letter and other material in its possession prior to the hearing, the prosecution did not.