Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

04/01/92 STATE TENNESSEE v. VERNON LEE RICKER

April 1, 1992

STATE OF TENNESSEE, APPELLEE
v.
VERNON LEE RICKER, APPELLANT



Henry County. Hon. Julian P. Guinn, Judge. (Probation Revocation)

Tipton, Byers, Jones

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Tipton

The defendant, Vernon Lee Ricker, appeals as of right from the revocation of his probation by the Henry County Circuit Court. His sole issue is whether or not the trial court erred in accepting a drug screen test result into evidence without the presence of the person who conducted the test. We affirm the revocation.

The defendant had entered pleas of guilty to five counts of vandalism, two counts of burglary and two counts of theft. He received a total sentence of two years and was placed on probation in December, 1990. A condition of probation was that he refrain from using marijuana. On February 27, 1991, his probation officer filed a report of violation and on April 29, 1991, the trial court revoked the probation after a hearing.

The sole basis of the revocation was a drug screen test report which reflected that a urinalysis showed the presence of cannabinoids, which are substances in marijuana. Ms. Teresa Pentecost, the probation officer, testified that she obtained the test sample from the defendant and delivered it the same day to Allied Clinical Laboratories in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The lab performs tests for her office pursuant to state contract. Ms. Pentecost submitted the lab's report over the defendant's objection. The defendant, his wife and his mother testified that he did not use drugs or alcohol.

The defendant contends that his constitutional right to confrontation was violated by the admission of the report without the person who prepared the test being present to testify. He relies upon State v. Henderson, 554 S.W.2d 117, 122 (Tenn. 1977) in which our Supreme Court stated that in the "face of an objection by the person charged, the State cannot prove an essential element of a criminal offense by test results introduced through a witness other than the one who conducted the tests." Henderson dealt with the right to confrontation afforded to the accused in a prosecution for a criminal offense. However, the same rights do not necessarily apply to a probation revocation hearing.

Although due process entitles a defendant to a hearing when revocation of probation is at issue, Practy v. State, 525 S.W.2d 677 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975), there is no prohibition against the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.