Background
Anthony Wallace was serving a community-corrections sentence when authorities accused him of third-degree domestic violence based on an allegation that he dragged his wife by her hair. At the revocation hearing, a deputy described what the alleged victim and others had reported, but the State did not call the victim or present another witness with personal knowledge of the alleged assault.
The Lawrence Circuit Court revoked Wallace's community-corrections sentence. Wallace appealed, arguing that the State's proof of the new offense consisted entirely of hearsay. Although revocation hearings use more flexible evidentiary procedures than criminal trials, Alabama law does not permit hearsay to serve as the sole basis for finding a violation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed. The deputy's account relayed statements made by other people and did not provide nonhearsay proof that Wallace committed domestic violence. Evidence establishing surrounding circumstances or explaining the investigation was not enough unless some admissible evidence connected Wallace to the alleged violation itself.
The court applied its prior revocation decisions involving domestic-violence allegations and reiterated that the State must present nonhearsay evidence corroborating the accusation. Because it failed to do so, the trial court could not be reasonably satisfied that Wallace violated the sentence conditions on the charged ground. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Community-corrections revocation cannot rest solely on an officer's repetition of an absent victim's accusation.
- The State needs nonhearsay evidence that connects the defendant to the alleged new offense, not merely to the investigation.
- Defense counsel should isolate each evidentiary link and preserve a specific sole-hearsay objection at the revocation hearing.
Why It Matters
The opinion reinforces an important due-process floor in Alabama revocation practice. The State need not prove a new crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but it must offer reliable, nonhearsay evidence supporting the violation. Prosecutors should plan witness and exhibit proof with that requirement in mind; defense lawyers should distinguish evidence showing that an incident occurred from evidence identifying the supervisee as the person who committed it.