ÿWPC½ …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ Þ w@æ 01& 0DW 0J› 0Tå 0^9 0h— 0rÿ 0|q 0†í 0s 1u 0dxU6Ü BU./U*]B)‡ D3°DCã AM& 0@sj³Dfav~ÇvÓE AOÆg 0D- D/q B ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiÚƒç"3|xÐ «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ¼ D½ ¾ V¿ À PÁ D Uà Ä DÅ Ó€(á(3ìL$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ë‡XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New d< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&'ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò `Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJuly€29,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó :Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€%ôÔÔ€(ÔÑ7Àë‡XXdÈdÈ7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóA€partial€transcript€of€the€December€6,€1995€trial€has€been€included€in€the€record€onÏappeal€with€the€transcript€of€the€probation€violation€hearing€on€appeal,€both€being€approved€by€the€trialÏcourt€as€part€of€the€trial€court€record€in€this€case.€Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€''Xd#ÑÑ#€''Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€(ÔÑ7€ Ìô XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€,.+A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€NOVEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9606„CC„00225Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€McMinn€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€Mayo€L.€Mashburn,€Judge€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌJACKIE€CROWE,à àà à€€€à à)à à€(Probation€Revocation)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌCharles€M.€Corn€€à àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ53„A€Central€Ave.,€P.O.€Box€1453à àà àandà àà àà àà àÌCleveland,€TN€37364„1453à àà àRobin€L.€HarrisÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€€€ÏWilliam€Donaldsonà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ì110€1/2€Washington€Ave.,€N.E.ÌAthens,€TN€37303à àà àà àà àJerry€N.€EstesÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌLaura€Hendricksà àà àà àà àà àandÌ606€West€Main€Streetà àà àà àSandra€DonaghyÌSuite€350à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌKnoxville,€TN€37901„0084à àà àà à203€E.€Madison€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€647Ìà àà àà àà àà àAthens,€TN€37371ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMED€€€ÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ` °‚X˜XÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌÌÓÓÓ` °½` £XÓà àThe€defendant,€Jackie€Crowe,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€revocation€ofÏhis€probation€by€the€McMinn€County€Criminal€Court.€€He€contends€that€the€trial€courtÏabused€its€discretion€by€revoking€his€probation.€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àIn€1988,€the€defendant€pled€guilty€to€two€counts€of€sexual€battery€andÏœreceived›€consecutive€five„year€sentences.€€The€sentences€were€suspended€andÏprobation€imposed€after€he€served€one€year€in€community€corrections.€€One€of€theÏconditions€of€his€probation€required€that€he€obey€the€laws€of€the€United€States€or€anyÏstate€in€which€he€was€located.€€On€December€6,€1994,€he€was€arrested€on€fourteenÍcharges€of€rape€and€fourteen€charges€of€incest.€€He€was€later€indicted€on€nine€chargesÏof€rape€and€nine€charges€of€incest.€€The€record€reflects€that€a€mistrial€was€declared€onÏthe€trial€of€these€charges€on€December€6,€1995,€because€the€jury€was€unable€to€reachÏa€verdict.ÌÌà àOn€January€3,€1996,€a€hearing€was€held€on€whether€the€defendant€hadÏviolated€the€conditions€of€his€probation.€€The€state€relied€completely€on€the€evidenceÏpresented€at€the€trial€of€the€rape€and€incest€allegations,€which€ended€in€a€mistrial.€€ItÏrequested€the€trial€judge€to€take€judicial€notice€of€the€testimony€presented€at€theÏmistrial,€to€which€the€judge€responded€that€it€was€not€necessary€for€him€to€take€judicialÏnotice€as€he€had€heard€the€testimony€himself.€€No€transcript€of€the€December€6,€1995Ïtrial€was€offered€into€evidence€at€that€time.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€defendant€called€two€witnesses,€theÏonly€two€witnesses€to€testify€at€the€probation€revocation€hearing.ÌÌà àThe€first€witness€was€Richie€Kenlan,€who€had€been€the€defendantððsÏprobation€officer€from€April€7,€1989,€when€the€defendant€was€placed€on€probation,€toÏOctober€29,€1994,€when€the€defendant€moved€to€Meigs€County.€€He€testified€that€theÏdefendant€did€everything€that€Mr.€Kenlan€asked€him€to€do,€and€he€had€received€noÏcomplaints€about€the€defendant€while€the€defendant€was€under€his€supervision.€€HeÍfurther€testified€that€the€defendant€and€his€family€kept€him€œwell„informed›€about€what€theÏdefendant€was€doing€while€the€defendant€was€under€his€supervision.ÌÌà àMark€Tomlinson€also€testified.€€He€was€the€defendantððs€probation€officerÏat€the€time€of€his€arrest€and€filed€the€affidavit€of€violation€of€probation€against€theÏdefendant,€which€alleged€that€the€defendant€was€in€violation€of€one€of€the€conditions€ofÏhis€probation,€that€he€would€obey€the€laws€of€the€state.€€Mr.€Tomlinson€testified€that€thisÏaffidavit€was€based€upon€the€defendantððs€being€charged€with€fourteen€counts€of€rapeÏand€fourteen€counts€of€incest.€€He€testified€that€the€defendant€was€not€in€violation€ofÏany€other€condition€of€his€probation.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€judge€revoked€the€defendantððsÏprobation.€€In€so€doing,€he€made€the€following€finding:ÌÓÓÌÓ  Óà8 àà àNow€having€considered€all€of€the€evidenceÏpresented€during€the€course€of€the€trial€of€the€defendantÏpertaining€to€the€offenses€involving€Natasha€Freeman,Ïwhich€of€course€resulted€in€a€mistrial,€I€find€by€even€moreÏthan€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendantÏhas€committed€offenses€of€rape€and€incest€on€the€person€ofÏNatasha€Freeman€as€set€out€in€counts€one€through€18€ofÏthis€indictment,€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà àAnd€thus€I€find€that€he€has€violated€the€terms€of€hisÏprobation€and€accordingly€the€Court€hereby€revokes€theÏdefendantððs€probation€and€hereby€orders€the€defendant€toÏserve€the€sentence€originally€imposed€upon€him.ÌÌÓÓÌÓ  Óà àIt€is€within€the€trial€courtððs€discretion€to€revoke€the€defendantððs€probation€ifÏit€finds€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€has€violated€a€conditionÏof€his€probation.€€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„35„310,€œ„311(d);›€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€810€S.W.2d€733,€735Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€For€an€appellate€court€to€find€an€abuse€of€discretion€andÏreverse€a€trial€courtððs€revocation€of€probation,€it€must€be€demonstrated€that€the€recordÏcontains€no€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€court€that€aÏviolation€of€the€conditions€of€probation€has€occurred.€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,Ï82€(Tenn.€1991).ÌÌà àIn€òòGagnon€v.€Scarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€œ93€S.€Ct.€1761›€(1973),€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€probationerððs€due€process€rights€when€a€stateÏattempts€to€remove€his€probationary€status€and€have€him€œincarcerated.€€òòGagnonóó,€411ÏU.S.€at€785„86,€93€S.€Ct.€at€1761„62.€€A€probationerððs€due€process€rights›€œinclude:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)›€written€notice€of€the€claimed€violations€of€œprobation;ÌÌà8 à(2)›€disclosure€to€the€œprobationer›€of€evidence€against€œhim€orÏher;ÌÌà8 à(3)›€opportunity€to€be€heard€in€person€and€to€presentÏwitnesses€and€documentary€œevidence;ÌÌà8 à(4)›€the€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€adverseÏwitnesses€œunless›€the€hearing€officer€specifically€finds€goodÏcause€for€not€allowing€œconfrontation;ÌÌà8 à(5)›€a€neutral€and€detached€hearing€body€such€as€aÏtraditional€parole€board,€members€of€which€need€not€beÏjudicial€officers€or€lawyers;€œandÌÌà8 à(6)›€a€written€statement€by€the€fact€finders€as€to€the€evidenceÏrelied€on€and€reasons€for€revoking€œprobation.ÌÌÓÓòòÓ  ÓGagnonóó,€411€U.S.€at€786,€93€S.€Ct.€1761„62;€òòPracty›€v.€œStateóó,›€525€S.W.2d€œ677,€680›Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974).ÌÌà à€€The€defendant€argues€that€the€only€evidence€presented€against€himÏwas€the€trial€judgeððs€memory€of€the€evidence€presented€at€the€mistrial€of€the€rape€andÏincest€allegations.€€He€argues€that€this€made€the€judge€a€witness€rather€than€the€arbiterÏof€the€œfacts,€and€that€such›€calls€into€question€the€trial€courtððs€neutrality€and€detachmentÏœand›€œviolates›€the€defendantððs€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€adverse€witnessesÏand€his€right€to€disclosure€of€the€evidence€against€him.€€He€also€argues€that€the€trialÏcourt€violated€his€right€to€a€written€statement€as€to€the€evidence€relied€on€œand€the›Ïreasons€for€revoking€probation.ÌÌà àThe€state€responds€that€the€evidence€of€the€defendantððs€probationÏviolation€was€disclosed€to€him€when€it€was€presented€at€trial,€at€which€time€theÏdefendant€had€ample€opportunity€and€sufficient€motive€to€cross„examine€theÏwitnesses.€€The€state€argues€that€the€trial€judge€properly€took€judicial€notice€of€factsÏthat€he€had€learned€through€the€legal€procedure€in€which€he€played€a€neutral€role.€ÍThe€state€also€argues€that€the€combination€of€the€oral€findings€made€from€the€bench,Ïthe€admittedly€sparse€order,€and€the€warrant€for€violation€of€probation€satisfy€theÏrequirement€of€a€written€statement€of€the€evidence€relied€on€and€the€reasons€forÏprobation€revocation.ÌÌà àInitially,€we€note€that€the€trial€court€may€take€judicial€notice€of€any€fact€thatÏis€capable€of€accurate€and€ready€determination€by€resort€to€sources€whose€accuracyÏcannot€reasonably€be€questioned.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€201.€€A€court€may€take€judicial€noticeÏof€facts€in€an€earlier€proceeding€in€the€same€case,€and€the€final€action€taken€in€theÏcase.€€òòPruitt€€v.€Stateóó,€460€S.W.2d€385,€395€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1970).€€However,€judicialÏnotice€in€such€cases€has€been€applied,€for€instance,€to€recognize€the€previousÏconviction€and€the€record€on€direct€appeal€in€considering€a€post„conviction€petition,ÏòòTrolinger€v.€Russell,óó€446€S.W.2d€538,€542€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969),€a€finding€that€aÏdefendant€is€a€habitual€offender,€òòPruitt,óó€460€S.W.2d€at€395,€or€a€proceeding€for€a€writ€ofÏhabeas€corpus,€òòState€ex€rel.€Leighton€v.€Hendersonóó,€448€S.W.2d€82,€89€(Tenn.€1969).€ÏIn€òòTrolingeróó,€the€court€commented€that€the€trial€court€ð ðtook€judicial€notice€of€all€of€itsÏprior€judgments,€records,€œetc.,›€as€a€matter€of€fact.ðð€€446€S.W.2d€at€542.ÌÌà àConsidering€the€use€of€judicial€notice€in€these€cases€and€the€requirementÏthat€judicial€notice€only€be€taken€of€facts€that€are€capable€of€accurate€and€readyÏdetermination€by€resort€to€sources€whose€accuracy€cannot€reasonably€œbe›€questioned,Íthe€credibility€of€the€witnesses€or€the€weight€of€their€testimony€are€not€proper€subjectsÏfor€judicial€notice.€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€went€beyond€recognizing€that€theÏwitnesses€had€testified€to€particular€facts.€€He€considered€the€credibility€of€witnessesÏwho€had€not€testified€in€the€immediate€proceeding€and€whose€credibility€had€not€beenÏpreviously€established€by€judgment€or€jury€verdict.€€When€he€did€so,€he€moved€out€ofÏthe€realm€of€judicial€notice€and€became,€in€effect,€a€witness€in€the€proceeding.€€A€trialÏcourt€may€not€take€judicial€notice€of€facts€based€on€personal€knowledge.€€œòòState€ex€rel.ÏNewsome€›€v.€Henderson,óó€424€S.W.2d€186,€188€(Tenn.€1968).ÌÌà àIn€òòVaughn€v.€Shelby€Williams€of€Tenn.,€Incòò.óó,óó€813€S.W.2d€132€œ(Tenn.Ï1991),›€the€trial€court€considered€extrajudicial€observations€of€the€plaintiff€before€trial€inÏdeciding€the€extent€of€the€plaintiffððs€vocational€disability.€€In€his€memorandum€opinion,Ïhe€stated€that€he€had€previously€had€an€opportunity€to€view€the€plaintiff€several€timesÏbefore€the€trial€in€various€locations€and€that,€ð ðYou€canððt€always€tell€how€disabled€aÏperson€is€by€just€observing€him;€anyway,€this€man€looks€and€walks€a€little€better€thanÏdeath€warmed€over.ðð€€òòVaughnòòóó,óó€813€S.W.2d€at€133.€€The€supreme€court€vacated€theÏjudgment€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial€with€a€different€judge,€concluding€that€theÏjudge€became€a€witness€to€the€proceedings,€which€is€forbidden€by€Rule€605.€€TheÏsupreme€court€went€on€to€state€that€there€was€good€reason€to€forbid€this€kind€ofÏbehavior,€as€it€interferes€with€the€trial€courtððs€appearance€of€impartiality€and€partiesÏmay€be€unwilling€to€vigorously€cross„examine€the€judge€or€may€not€get€an€opportunityÍto€cross„examine€the€judge€at€all.€€òòIdóó.€at€134.€€Thus,€the€trial€judgeððs€ultimate€findings€inÏthe€present€case€came€from€his€own€recollection€of€the€rape€trial€evidence,€aÏquestionable€œprocedure›€at€best.ÌÌà àœWe€note€that›€in€a€probation€violation€hearing,€reliable€hearsay€isÏpermitted.€€òòPractyóó,€525€S.W.2d€at€680.€€If€the€transcript€of€the€December€6,€1995Ïhearing€had€been€offered€into€evidence,€it€would€have€had€considerable€indicia€ofÑ€0ÑÇreliability.€€The€witnessesðð€testimony€was€taken€in€compliance€with€the€law€at€anotherÏhearing€in€a€proceeding€involving€the€same€parties€and€subject€matter,€and€theÏdefendant€had€both€an€opportunity€and€a€similar€motive€to€œdevelop€testimony›€by€cross„œexamination.€€òòSeeóó›€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b)(1).€€In€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€though,Ïit€was€his€memory€of€the€testimony,€not€the€transcript,€upon€which€the€trial€judge€relied.ÌÌà àHowever,€the€deciding€factor€is€that€the€defendant€did€not€object€at€theÏrevocation€hearing€to€the€trial€courtððs€consideration€of€the€rape€trial€testimony.€€In€fact,Ïthe€defendant€also€requested€the€court€to€consider€testimony€from€the€same€trial.€€ð ðAÏparty€cannot€witness€misconduct€on€the€part€of€the€court,€await€the€result€of€the€verdict,Ïand€then,€if€it€is€against€him€or€her,€object€to€the€alleged€misconduct.ðð€€òòState€v.€Tuneóó,Ï872€S.W.2d€922,€930€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€In€other€words,€by€not€objecting€to€theÏtrial€courtððs€procedure,€while€even€adopting€the€same€procedure,€the€defendant€cannotÏnow€complain€of€that€process.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€36(a).ÌÌà àRegarding€the€defendantððs€claim€that€the€trial€court€failed€to€satisfy€hisÏdue€process€requirement€of€a€written€statement€of€the€evidence€relied€on€and€theÏreasons€for€revoking€probation,€this€court€has€held€that€authentication€of€œa›€verbatimÏtranscript€of€œa›€probation€revocation€œhearing,›€containing€the€trial€courtððs€oral€findings,Ïsubstantially€œcomplies›€with€this€requirement.€€òòState€v.€Delpóó,€614€S.W.2d€395,€397Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€Although€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€this€case€were€notÍnearly€as€extensive€as€that€of€the€trial€court€in€òòDelpóó,€who€made€three„and„a„half€pagesÏof€findings,€we€œbelieve›€that€the€warrant€for€violation€of€probation,€the€authenticatedÏverbatim€transcript,€and€the€order€of€revocation,€in€œcombination,›€œsubstantially›€œcomplied›Ïwith€the€requirement€for€a€written€statement€of€findings.ÌÌà àœÇà àIn€reviewing€the€record€before€us,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€actedÏwithin€its€discretion€by€revoking€the€defendantððs€probation.€€The€trial€court€is€affirmed.›€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge€