 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Cline10/30/2001
ultaneously requesting additional prescriptions from Dr. Clough. We conclude that this evidence is adequate to support the trial court's finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant's probation and judicial diversion should be revoked.
D. Trial Court's Ruling
As his final issue, the appellant complains that " he rial court erred in failing to hear all of the proof before forming a opinion on the case because due process requires the rial court to weigh all proof before rendering a decision." Specifically, the appellant argues that, " he rial court in response to a hearsay objection from the State expressed a premature opinion or decision in the instant case by stating `it doesn't matter at this point, but I will listen to it.'" the State contends that the trial court was merely stating that, because hearsay testimony had previously been introduced during the probation revocation hearing, the introduction of additional hearsay testimony would have little effect on her decision. After reading the transcript of the probation revocation hearing, we agree with the State.
Cline attempted to explain one instance of Boles' missing medication by relating that Boles told her that he had flushed his pills down the toilet so that he could keep pennies he was collecting for school in the bottle. The State objected, arguing that Boles' comments to Cline would be hearsay. The court responded by saying that `it doesn't matter at this point, but I will listen to it." It appears that, because the trial judge's comment directly followed a hearsay objection much like those the trial court had previously overruled, the trial court was referring to the admission of additional hearsay testimony. Additionally, we note that testimony similar to that offered by Cline was previously admitted, without objection, through Moss, Boles' teacher. Moreover, the trial court clearly stated prior to her ruling that " his court has heard and is considering all the evidence that has been entered into this record, as well as all of the testimony of all the witnesses in this case, and the closing arguments by the counsel of record." Furthermore, the trial judge proceeded to detail all of the evidence she considered in reaching her decision. This issue is without merit.
III. Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
NORMA McGEE OGLE, JUDGE
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|