ÿWPCk' h ÖÞï @Y壤ݤ§¾â-Œ4q`W¯8ýÛ_&}¨û(Ü%Ÿa”ßþ„õ(qD¹À2R^€»X]\~Ñ ý•?,à ¸"€'¯ -ú¹A©Ò´ä&ü»0)ר<ÌUyÔâ_hïŸ}Ï…6.òÍåжšY-mC%Ü:Å…þ nØ\×ð%`§1>!|»ÐþE•š"z#Ý®–™ó i‰}F’'Íu"¬º öòÍå^ , á¾Rº–ðM›üÆVKò)±P=% m ÷³%€k|îk9ºA]®ü‚EhˆåÖ@e¨6bW6\”‹³ÞŠb1³É,vœj­Òy€kšè9ÒÚì4Š<ƒ “ŒÕ!8¢{¢,ăõ#hn8iC}ÜBÞ—ºÒZ‚ö .øújò”˜J!êîÆxÔ˜ß Y;Eükõí w1k/ƒÙDY×HX4H«3Q½Ç~^í§4P¥”¯úÜWz÷ÄÜÞ›Cs!”­,¹†0ÿÁóuLxÝóå¤SloejýÇ:º\“#u>†21˜žo–¡n@s° uÝÊõÊQ™þ ™ ‹œfD˜ÚþKÐpÏüD=ýpÛ—6±mÅÇGKR8cbW”Ê:b %\Nb 0ˆdU#Nìå: z Ò™ zk Òå ^ · wà 4Ç Û Æê ư ÆvÆ<N m#ÁEÞ 0DàÛ$U@ÿë?ú*'$UNKÇ™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™™b`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`"`" 0ëh"h"h"h" BS#S# 0¤p# D3$ D-G$ 0Kt$t$ AS¿$Æ% 0¤Ø% 0D|& A«À&»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ÛÝ ƒRåµ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€note€that€this€medication€is€also€spelled€ð ðÔ_ÔAdderallÔ_Ôðð€in€various€portions€of€the€record.€€According€to€theÐ ° Ðtestimony€of€Dr.€Clough,€the€medication€is€ð ða€stimulant€of€the€amphetamine€classðð€which€would€cause€a€person€to€feelÐ tÄ Ðð ðeuphoria€and€lots€of€energy.ðð€˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptPœz+ ÖJ~'Ôm£|é£  3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÑÝ ƒRåµ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Ô_ÔTennÔ_Ô.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„406(a)€(1998)€provides:€Ð ° Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ‡ô¬]òòô¬]Ô(1)€Any€person€who€drives€any€motor€vehicle€in€the€state€is€deemed€to€have€givenÐ tÄ Ðconsent€to€a€test€for€the€purpose€of€determining€the€alcoholic€or€drug€content€of€thatÐ 8ˆ Ðperson's€blood;€provided,€that€such€test€is€administered€at€the€direction€of€a€lawÐ üL Ðenforcement€officer€having€reasonable€grounds€to€believe€such€person€was€drivingÐ À Ðwhile€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€or€drug,€as€defined€in€ðð€55-10-405.€.€.€.€Ô#†ô¬]òòô¬]#ÔЄÔ` x` x Ðà  àà ` àÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÔ‡ô¬]òòô¬]Ô(3)€If€such€person€having€been€placed€under€arrest€and€thereafter€having€beenÐ ” ä  Ðrequested€by€a€law€enforcement€officer€to€submit€to€such€test€and€advised€of€theÐ X ¨  Ðconsequences€for€refusing€to€do€so,€refuses€to€submit,€the€test€shall€not€be€given,Ð  l  Ðand€such€person€shall€be€charged€with€violating€this€subsection.Ô‡X@ÉXòô¬]Ô€€Ô#†X@ÉXXX@ÉÜ#ÔÔ#†ô¬]òXX@Éj#Ô(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  áÝ ƒRåµ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€The€record€does€not€reflect€the€nature€of€the€test€Officer€Randolph€requested€the€appellant€take. ðÝ ƒRåµ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€have€chosen€to€address€the€appellantððs€issues€in€an€order€different€from€that€presented€by€the€appellant.€ Ý ƒRåµ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€We€note€that€the€transcript€of€the€probation€revocation€hearing€reflects€that€Officer€Randolph€alsoÐ ° Ðauthenticated€a€videotape€of€the€appellantððs€performance€on€the€field€sobriety€tests.€€The€trial€court€placed€ð ð€a€great€dealÐ tÄ Ðof€weight€on€the€video€tapeðð€in€making€the€decision€to€revoke€the€appellantððs€probation€and€judicial€diversion.€€However,Ð 8ˆ Ðthe€appellant€has€neglected€to€include€this€videotape€in€the€record€for€our€review.€€The€appellant€bears€the€burden€ofÐ üL Ðensuring€that€the€record€on€appeal€conveys€a€fair,€accurate,€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€in€the€lower€courtÐ À Ðwith€respect€to€the€issues€presented€for€our€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔBolingÔ_Ôóó,€840€S.W.2d€944,€951€(Ô_ÔTennÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1992).(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ½Ý ƒRåµ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬]ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Additionally,€Dr.€Clough€read€from€Bolesðð€medical€records€a€statement€that€was€recorded€by€Dr.€Ô_ÔCoburnÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðconcerning€Mark€Bolesðð€comments.€€While€statements€made€for€the€purpose€of€diagnosis€and€treatment€and€medicalÐ tÄ Ðrecords€are€generally€admissible€as€an€exception€to€the€rule€excluding€hearsay,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔEvidÔ_Ô.€803(4)€&€(6);€òòÔ‡ô¬]òòô¬]Ôsee€alsoóóÔ#†ô¬]òòô¬]=#ÔÐ 8ˆ ÐòòState€v.€Ô_ÔGoldstonÔ_Ôóó,€29€S.W.3d€537,€541€(Ô_ÔTennÔ_Ô.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1999),€there€is€no€evidence€that€any€attempt€was€made€toÐ üL Ðintroduce€Bolesðð€medical€records€at€the€hearing.- ù-(|G2åµ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬]ò»»Ô d(|3?^$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?^$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€@ÉXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îtÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼»îît #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` à€Assigned€on€Briefs€May€16,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X@ÉX»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XX@É#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€STEPHEN€E.€CLINEÔ‡X@ÉX»¼Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€as€of€Right€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Ô_ÔOvertonÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€4012„4015€€€€€€Ô_ÔLillieÔ_Ô€Ann€Sells,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„01674„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€October€30,€2001Ð ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€appellant,€Stephen€E.€Cline,€pled€guilty€in€the€Ô_ÔOvertonÔ_Ô€County€Criminal€Court€to€four€countsÐ xÈ  Ðof€obtaining€a€controlled€substance€by€forgery,€and€the€trial€court€imposed€concurrent€sentences€ofÐ d´ Ðfour€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€The€trial€court€granted€theÐ P  Ðappellant€judicial€diversion€and€placed€him€on€probation€for€four€years.€€Subsequently,€the€appellantÐ <Œ Ðwas€arrested€for€driving€under€the€influence€(Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô)€and€failing€to€comply€with€the€implied€consentÐ (x Ðlaw.€€A€warrant€for€revocation€of€probation€and€judicial€diversion€was€issued€alleging€the€foregoingÐ d Ðoffenses€and€contending€that€the€appellant€had€fraudulently€obtained€a€controlled€substance.€Ð P ÐPursuant€to€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€revoked€the€appellantððs€probation€and€entered€judgments€ofÐ ì< Ðconviction€for€all€four€counts€of€obtaining€a€controlled€substance€by€forgery.€€On€appeal,€theÐ Ø( Ðappellant€raises€the€following€issues€for€our€review:€(1)€whether€there€was€sufficient€evidence€forÐ Ä Ðthe€trial€court€to€find€that€the€appellant€violated€his€probation€and€judicial€diversion;€(2)€whether€theÐ ° Ðtrial€court€violated€the€appellantððs€right€to€confrontation€in€admitting€hearsay€statements€during€theÐ œì Ðhearing;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€violated€the€appellantððs€due€process€rights€by€failing€to€bifurcateÐ ˆØ Ðthe€probation€revocation€proceedings;€and€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€consider€allÐ tÄ Ðof€the€proof€before€forming€an€opinion€on€the€case.€€Upon€review€of€the€record€and€the€partiesððÐ `° Ðbriefs,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð L œ ÐÓàÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ $"t! ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»àX@É#ÔÔ‡X@ÉX.¼ÔNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòJohnÐ ü#L# ÐEverett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌMichael€R.€Ô_ÔGiaimoÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔLivingstonÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€and€Gary€Ô_ÔLovelletteÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔCookevilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ À&"& Ðappellant,€Stephen€E.€Cline.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Laura€E.€Ô_ÔMcMullenÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð „)Ô$) ÐWilliam€E.€Gibson,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Owen€G.€Burnett,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ p*À%* ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð \+¬&+ ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XX@É5 #ÔÔ‡X@ÉX»¼ÔÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡òòóóÔ#†¼»XX@ÉÆ#ÔÔ‡X@ÉX»¼ÔÓ  Óà@ìàòòò òI.€€Factual€Backgroundó óóóÔ#†¼»XX@É8#ÔÔ€X@ÉX»¼ÔˆÐ ° Ðà  àà ` àFollowing€the€appellantððs€February€24,€1999€guilty€pleas€to€three€counts€of€obtainingÐ œì Ða€schedule€III€controlled€substance€by€forgery€and€one€count€of€obtaining€a€schedule€V€drug€byÐ ˆØ Ðforgery,€the€trial€court€granted€the€appellant€judicial€diversion,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„Ð tÄ Ð313(a)(1)(A)€(1997),€and€placed€him€on€probation€for€four€years.€€The€trial€court€specified€that€theÐ `° Ðfirst€two€years€would€be€spent€on€supervised€probation€and€the€remaining€€two€years€on€unsupervisedÐ L œ Ðprobation.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€March€21,€2000,€Officer€Bill€Randolph€received€two€separate€complaintsÐ  ` Ðregarding€a€brown€Ford€pickup€truck€with€the€tag€number€515€TRW.€€The€first€call,€received€at€11:25Ð ü L  Ða.m.,€alleged€that€a€truck€was€seen€driving€erratically€and€running€vehicles€off€the€road.€€The€secondÐ è 8  Ðcall,€which€was€placed€by€an€Arbyððs€restaurant€employee€at€1:30€p.m.,€alleged€that€an€individualÐ Ô$  Ðsitting€in€a€brown€truck€in€the€Arbyððs€parking€lot€appeared€to€be€smoking€a€marijuana€cigarette.€Ð À  ÐAfter€patrolling€the€area,€Officer€Randolph€located€the€vehicle€in€the€parking€lot€of€Dr.€Steve€EllisððÐ ¬ü  Ðdental€office.€€The€appellant€was€sitting€on€the€driverððs€side€of€the€truck.€€Officer€RandolphÐ ˜è  Ðapproached€the€vehicle€and€asked€the€appellant€to€step€outside€the€truck€in€order€to€perform€fieldÐ „Ô  Ðsobriety€tests.€€Officer€Randolph€contended€that€the€appellant€performed€poorly€on€all€of€the€testsÐ pÀ Ðgiven;€therefore,€he€concluded€that€the€appellant€was€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicatingÐ \¬ Ðsubstance.€€Officer€Randolph€then€asked€the€appellant€to€take€a€test€to€determine€the€appellantððs€levelÐ H˜ Ðof€intoxication,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€but€the€appellant€refused€to€comply€with€the€request.€€As€a€result,€Officer€RandolphÐ 4„ Ðplaced€the€appellant€under€arrest€for€violating€the€implied€consent€law€and€driving€under€theÐ  p Ðinfluence.€€Subsequently,€Officer€Randolph€searched€the€appellant€and€found€a€cut„off€straw€in€theÐ  \ Ðappellantððs€shirt€pocket.€€Additionally,€he€found€pills€of€an€unknown€type€in€the€appellantððs€vehicle.€Ð øH ÐAt€the€appellantððs€probation€revocation€hearing,€Officer€Randolph€explained€that€a€cut„off€straw€isÐ ä4 Ðoften€adapted€by€drug€users€to€ð ðhandle€their€drugs€through€their€nose,€powdered€drugs.ðð€Ð Ð  ÐFurthermore,€Captain€Tim€Emerton€testified€that€the€pills€found€in€the€appellantððs€vehicle€could€beÐ ¼  Ðcrushed€and€then€inhaled€through€the€straw.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àAdditionally,€in€March€through€May€of€2000,€the€appellantððs€six„year„old€stepson,Ð €Ð ÐChristian€Boles,€was€taking€the€prescription€drug€Aderall,׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€a€controlled€substance,€to€treat€hisÐ l¼ ÐAttention€Deficit€Disorder€(ADD).€€Some€of€Bolesðð€medication€had€been€taken€to€AlgoodÐ X ¨ ÐElementary€School€so€that€school€personnel€could€administer€Bolesðð€afternoon€dose.€€Melissa€Moss,Ð D!” ÐBolesðð€teacher,€testified€at€the€appellantððs€probation€revocation€hearing€that€Bolesðð€mother,€RoxanneÐ 0"€  ÐCline,€and€the€appellant€had€picked€up€all€of€Bolesðð€medication,€averring€that€they€were€taking€BolesÐ #l! Ðoff€of€the€medication.€€However,€soon€thereafter€the€school€was€given€more€medication€for€Boles.€Ð $X" ÐMoss€further€testified€that€this€pattern€was€repeated€several€times.€€Dr.€John€Clough,€BolesððÐ ô$D # Ðphysician,€testified€that€he€never€recommended€that€Boles€discontinue€taking€the€Aderall.€Ð à%0!$ ÐAdditionally,€Dr.€Clough€testified€that,€on€several€occasions,€the€appellant€and€Cline€asked€forÐ Ì&"% Ðadditional€prescriptions€due€to€ð ðlostðð€or€ð ðdestroyedðð€medication.€€Specifically,€Dr.€Clough€recalledÐ ° Ðthat,€on€May€6òòóó,€2000,€the€appellant€and€Cline€came€to€his€home€and€requested€additional€medicationÐ œì Ðfor€Boles.€€They€explained€that,€earlier€that€morning,€orange€juice€had€been€spilled€on€theÐ ˆØ Ðmedication.€€They€requested€fourteen€additional€pills.€€Later,€on€May€7,€2000,€the€appellant€came€toÐ tÄ ÐDr.€Cloughððs€home€and€advised€that€they€needed€forty€pills,€not€fourteen.€€Nonetheless,€on€May€8,Ð `° Ð2000,€the€appellant€and€Cline€sent€a€letter€to€Bolesðð€school€instructing€the€school€officials€to€returnÐ L œ Ðthe€remainder€of€Bolesðð€medication€because€Boles€had€an€appointment€with€a€psychiatrist€and€theyÐ 8 ˆ Ðwanted€the€psychiatrist€to€see€Boles€in€an€unmedicated€state.€€After€Dr.€Clough€was€informed€of€theÐ $ t Ðparentsðð€pattern€of€withdrawing€Bolesðð€medication€from€the€school,€he€ð ðcalled€the€Department€ofÐ  ` ÐHuman€Services€to€make€sure€that€they€were€looking€into€this€to€see€if€[Boles]€was€getting€hisÐ ü L  Ðmedication€or€not.ððÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àA€probation€revocation€warrant€was€issued,€alleging€that€the€appellant€had€violatedÐ À  Ðhis€probation€by€driving€under€the€influence,€violating€the€implied€consent€law,€possessing€drugÐ ¬ü  Ðparaphernalia,€and€obtaining€prescription€amphetamines€by€fraud.€€Subsequent€to€a€hearing,€the€trialÐ ˜è  Ðcourt€found€that€the€appellant€had€violated€his€probation€associated€with€judicial€diversion€on€all€ofÐ „Ô  Ðthe€alleged€grounds.€€Therefore,€the€court€revoked€the€appellantððs€probation€and€entered€judgmentsÐ pÀ Ðof€conviction€for€the€four€counts€of€obtaining€a€controlled€substance€by€forgery,€imposing€concurrentÐ \¬ Ðsentences€of€four€years€incarceration€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€The€appellantÐ H˜ Ðcurrently€contests€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€appeal.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 4„ ÐÌà@éé$ìàòòò òII.€€Analysisó óóóˆÐ  \ Ðà@““#ìàA.€€BifurcationˆÐ øH Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€argues€at€length€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€him€aÐ ä4 Ðð ðpreliminary€hearing€prior€to€the€final€hearingðð€in€order€to€comply€with€the€mandates€of€òòGagnon€v.Ð Ð  ÐScarpellióó,€411€U.S.€778,€781„2,€93€S.€Ct.€1756,€1759„60€(1973).€€òòóóThis€court€recently€summarized€theÐ ¼  Ðfollowing€ð ðððminimum€requirements€of€due€processðððð€that€òòScarpellióó€instructs€must€be€afforded€to€anÐ ¨ø Ðappellant€in€a€probation€revocation€hearing:Ð ”ä Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àð ð(a)€written€notice€of€the€claimed€violations€of€[probation€or]€parole;ЀÐ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)€disclosure€to€the€[probationer€or]€parolee€of€evidence€against€him;Ðl¼` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(c)€opportunity€to€be€heard€in€person€and€to€present€witnesses€andÐ X ¨ Ðdocumentary€evidence;ÐD!”` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(d)€the€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€adverse€witnesses€(unlessÐ 0"€  Ðthe€hearing€officer€specifically€finds€good€cause€for€not€allowingÐ #l! Ðconfrontation);Ð$X"` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(e)€a€neutral€and€detached€hearing€body€.€.€.€;€and€Ðô$D #` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(f)€a€written€statement€by€the€factfinders€as€to€the€evidence€relied€onÐ à%0!$ Ðand€reasons€for€revoking€[probation€or]€parole.ðð€ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐòòState€v.€Eva€Henryóó,€No.€M1999„2582„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1208313,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ ¸'#& ÐNashville,€August€24,€2000)€(alterations€in€original)€(quoting€òòScarpellióó,€411€U.S.€at€786,€93€S.€Ct.Ð ¤(ô#' Ðat€1761).€€We€note€that€this€court€has€repeatedly€held€that€the€probation€revocation€proceduresÐ )à$( Ðemployed€in€this€state€sufficiently€comply€with€the€dictates€of€òòScarpellióó.€€òòSeeóó€òòPracty€v.€Stateóó,€525Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€677,€682€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1974);€òòÔ‡X@ÉXXX@ÉÔsee€alsoóóÔ#†X@ÉXXX@É:4#Ô€òòMassey€v.€Stateóó,€929€S.W.2d€399,€401„2€(Tenn.Ð œì ÐCrim.€App.€1996).€€Specifically,€this€court€has€previously€rejected€similar€claims€alleging€a€violationÐ ˆØ Ðof€constitutional€rights€because€of€the€lack€of€a€preliminary€hearing,€finding€that€ð ðòòGagnon€v.Ð tÄ ÐScarpellióó€[does]€not€require€a€preliminary€hearing€in€the€context€of€Tennesseeððs€statutory€scheme€.Ð `° Ð.€.€[because]€Tennesseeððs€statutory€scheme€fully€complie[s]€with€all€constitutional€requirements.ðð€Ð L œ ÐòòState€v.€Terry€Lynn€Bumpusóó,€No.€89„180„III,€1990€WL€17774,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,Ð 8 ˆ ÐMarch€1,€1990).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð $ t ÐÌà@ÐÐìàB.€€Right€to€ConfrontationˆÐ ü L  Ðà  àà ` àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€violated€the€appellantððs€right€toÐ è 8  Ðconfrontation€by€admitting€certain€hearsay€testimony.€€The€right€to€confrontation€is€contained€inÐ Ô$  ÐAmendment€VI€to€the€United€States€Constitution,€which€provides€that€the€accused€has€the€right€ð ðtoÐ À  Ðbe€confronted€with€the€witnesses€against€him.ðð€€Additionally,€Article€I,€ðð€9€of€the€TennesseeÐ ¬ü  ÐConstitution€explains€that€ð ðthe€accused€hath€the€right€.€.€.€to€meet€the€witnesses€face€to€face.ððòòóó€Ð ˜è  ÐHowever,€ð ðthe€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€an€adverse€witness€ððis€not€absolute€and€may€beÐ „Ô  Ðrelaxedðð€in€a€probation€revocation€hearing.ðð€€òòState€v.€Mossóó,€13€S.W.3d€374,€386€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð pÀ Ð1999)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Wadeóó,€863€S.W.2d€406,€407€(Tenn.€1993)).€€Moreover,€ð ðthe€right€to€cross„Ð \¬ Ðexamine€witnesses€in€such€a€proceeding€may€be€denied€by€the€trial€court€upon€a€finding€of€goodÐ H˜ Ðcause.ðð€€òòId.óó;€òòÔ‡X@ÉXXX@ÉÔsee€alsoóóÔ#†X@ÉXXX@É0<#Ô€òòScarpellióó,€411€U.S.€at€786,€93€S.€Ct.€at€1762.€€€Regardless,€ð ðeven€where€thereÐ 4„ Ðis€a€showing€of€good€cause,€due€process€requires€proof€that€the€[evidence]€is€reliable.ðð€€òòWadeóó,€863Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€at€408.€€In€sum,€this€court€has€explained€that€Ð  \ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àhearsay€evidence€is€admissible€at€a€probation€revocation€hearing,€thusÐ øH Ðdepriving€the€probationer€of€the€right€to€cross„examination,€whenÐ ä4 Ðminimum€confrontation€requirements€.€.€.€are€met€.€.€.€includ[ing]€(1)Ð Ð  Ða€specific€finding€by€the€trial€court€of€ð ðgood€causeðð€that€would€justifyÐ ¼  Ðthe€denial€of€the€defendantððs€right€to€confront€and€cross„examine€anÐ ¨ø Ðadverse€witness;€and€(2)€a€showing€that€the€information€contained€inÐ ”ä Ðthe€[hearsay€testimony]€is€reliable.ЀÐ` x` x ÐòòState€v.€Joyce€Newmanóó,€No.€M1999„00161„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€994358,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð l¼ ÐApp.€at€Nashville,€July€12,€2000)€(citations€omitted).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€appellant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€Dr.€Cloughððs€testimonyÐ 0"€  Ðregarding€a€conversation€he€had€with€Dr.€Coburn,€his€medical€partner,€which€detailed€a€telephoneÐ #l! Ðconversation€Dr.€Coburn€had€with€Mark€Boles,€Clineððs€ex„husband€and€Bolesðð€biological€father.€€Dr.Ð $X" ÐCoburn€related€that€Mark€Boles€was€concerned€that€someone€was€stealing€Bolesðð€Aderall€and€wasÐ ô$D # Ðreplacing€it€with€aspirin.€€The€appellant€objected€to€this€testimony€on€the€grounds€that€it€containsÐ à%0!$ Ðdouble€hearsay.€€The€trial€court€overruled€the€appellantððs€objection€stating,€ð ðThat€is€not€hearsay.€€ThisÐ Ì&"% Ðis€from€the€same€office€and€a€practicing€physician€treating€the€child.ðð€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àTenn.€R.€Evid.€801(c)€provides€that€hearsay€ð ðis€a€statement,€other€than€one€made€byÐ )à$( Ðthe€declarant€while€testifying€at€the€trial€or€hearing,€offered€in€evidence€to€prove€the€truth€of€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðmatter€asserted.ðð€€Generally,€ð ð[h]earsay€is€not€admissible€except€as€provided€by€[the€Tennessee€RulesÐ h+¸&* Ðof€Evidence]€or€otherwise€by€law.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€802.€€We€agree€with€the€appellant€that€there€areÐ ° Ðtwo€layers€of€hearsay€contained€in€the€contested€statement;€first,€the€conversation€between€MarkÐ œì ÐBoles€and€Dr.€Coburn,€and,€second,€the€dialogue€between€Dr.€Coburn€and€Dr.€Clough.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trialÐ ˆØ Ðcourt€did€not€specifically€find€that€there€was€ð ðgood€causeðð€for€not€calling€Dr.€Coburn€or€Mark€BolesÐ tÄ Ðas€witnesses,€thereby€violating€the€appellantððs€right€to€confrontation.€€Additionally,€there€is€noÐ `° Ðsignificant€showing€in€the€record€that€either€layer€of€hearsay€is€reliable.€€Therefore,€notwithstandingÐ L œ Ðthe€ð ðlesser€degree€of€formality€and€inflexibilityðð€of€a€probation€revocation€hearing,€we€conclude€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€trial€court€erred€in€allowing€this€statement€into€evidence€over€the€appellantððs€objection.€Ð $ t ÐòòAlejandros€Gauna€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9512„CC„00422,€1997€WL€71824,€at€*2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  ` Ðat€Nashville,€February€20,€1997).€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àRegardless,€we€find€that€the€admission€of€this€testimony€is€harmless€beyond€aÐ Ô$  Ðreasonable€doubt.€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€52(a);€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€It€is€well„established€thatÐ À  Ða€conviction€need€not€be€reversed€due€to€an€error€of€constitutional€dimensions€as€long€as€the€StateÐ ¬ü  Ðdemonstrates€ð ðbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€the€error€complained€of€did€not€contribute€to€theÐ ˜è  Ðverdict€obtained.ðð€€òòChapman€v.€Californiaóó,€386€U.S.€18,€24,€87€S.€Ct.€824,€828€(1967);€òòÔ‡X@ÉXXX@ÉÔsee€alsoóóÔ#†X@ÉXXX@ÉÚL#Ô€òòStateÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Anthony€H.€Deanóó,€No.€W2000„01156„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€1150309,€at€*15€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð pÀ Ðat€Jackson,€September€28,€2001).€€There€was€sufficient€testimony€concerning€the€suspiciousÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances€surrounding€the€disappearance€of€Bolesðð€medication€to€revoke€the€appellantððsÐ H˜ Ðprobation€and€judicial€diversion€without€consideration€of€the€aforementioned€statement.€€Therefore,Ð 4„ Ðð ð[o]ther€evidence€exists€regarding€the€appellantððs€guilt.€[Accordingly,]€[w]e€conclude€the€outcomeÐ  p Ðof€the€[hearing]€would€not€have€been€different€had€the€statement[]€not€been€presented€[at€theÐ  \ Ðhearing].ðð€€òòState€v.€Landóó,€34€S.W.3d€516,€530€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.Ð øH Ð2000).€€Moreover,€alternate€grounds€exist€for€the€probation€revocation,€namely€DUI,€violating€theÐ ä4 Ðimplied€consent€law,€and€possessing€drug€paraphernalia.€€These€grounds€are€sufficient€to€justify€theÐ Ð  Ðprobation€revocation.€Ð ¼  ÐÌÓ  ÓCà0 @ àà @° à.€€Probation€and€Judicial€Diversion€RevocationÐ ”ä ÐÓŸQÓà  àà ` àNext,€we€will€address€the€appellantððs€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidenceÐ €Ð Ðsupporting€the€revocation€of€his€probation€and€judicial€diversion.€€In€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,€811€S.W.2dÐ l¼ Ð79,€82€(Tenn.€1991)€(citations€omitted),€our€supreme€court€explained€thatÐ X ¨ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àa€trial€judge€may€revoke€a€sentence€of€probation€.€.€.€upon€a€findingÐ D!” Ðthat€the€defendant€has€violated€the€conditions€of€his€probation€.€.€.€byÐ 0"€  Ða€€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€inÐ #l! Ðthis€regard€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal€unless€it€appears€that€thereÐ $X" Ðhas€been€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€In€order€for€a€reviewing€court€to€beÐ ô$D # Ðwarranted€in€finding€an€abuse€of€discretion€in€a€probation€revocationÐ à%0!$ Ðcase,€it€must€be€established€that€the€record€contains€no€substantialÐ Ì&"% Ðevidence€to€support€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€judge€that€a€violationÐ ° Ðof€the€conditions€of€probation€has€occurred.€€The€proof€of€a€probationÐ œì Ðviolation€need€not€be€established€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€but€it€isÐ ˆØ Ðsufficient€if€it€allows€the€trial€judge€to€make€a€conscientious€andÐ tÄ Ðintelligent€judgment.€€€Ð`°` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€probation€revocation€hearing,€the€appellant€conceded€that€he€refused€to€submitÐ 8 ˆ Ðto€a€test€to€determine€his€level€of€intoxication€and€thereby€violated€the€implied€consent€law.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р$ t ÐAdditionally,€the€appellant€admitted€that€he€performed€poorly€on€the€field€sobriety€tests;€however,Ð  ` Ðthe€appellant€contended€that€his€performance€was€impaired€because€he€had€an€extensive€cut€on€theÐ ü L  Ðbottom€of€his€foot,€and€he€was€exhausted€because€he€had€not€gotten€much€sleep€the€night€before.€Ð è 8  ÐOfficer€Randolph€admitted€that€he€did€not€smell€alcohol€on€the€appellant€but€maintained€that,€dueÐ Ô$  Ðto€the€appellantððs€performance€on€the€field€sobriety€tests,€he€concluded€that€the€appellant€was€underÐ À  Ðthe€influence€of€a€controlled€substance.׃¬ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401(a)(1)€(1998).€Ð ¬ü  ÐAdditionally,€Officer€Randolph€testified€that€the€appellant€never€informed€the€officer€that€he€had€aÐ ˜è  Ðcut€foot€at€the€time€of€the€field€sobriety€tests,€even€after€the€officer€ð ðasked€[the€appellant]€if€he€hadÐ „Ô  Ðany€problems€with€his€knees€or€legs.ðð€€Based€upon€this€evidence,€the€trial€court€reasonably€found€byÐ pÀ Ða€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€appellant€committed€the€offense€of€DUI€and€violated€theÐ \¬ Ðimplied€consent€law.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„311(e)€(2000)€(providing€that€the€trial€court€mayÐ H˜ Ðrevoke€a€defendantððs€probation€if€satisfied€that€ð ðthe€defendant€has€violated€the€conditions€ofÐ 4„ Ðprobation€and€suspension€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceðð).€€One€of€the€conditions€of€theÐ  p Ðappellantððs€probation€and€judicial€diversion€is€as€follows:Ð  \ Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð à3.€€The€defendant€shall€not€violate€any€law€of€the€United€States€ofÐ øH ÐAmerica,€the€State€of€Tennessee,€or€any€other€state€in€which€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€may€be,€or€any€ordinance€of€a€municipality€havingÐ Ð  Ðjurisdiction€over€the€defendant;€and€the€defendant€shall€not€engage€inÐ ° Ðconduct€inconsistent€with€good€citizenship.€€The€defendant€shall€notÐ œì Ðparticipate€in€any€activity€which€results€in€the€defendant€beingÐ ˆØ Ðarrested€by€a€law€enforcement€official.ÐtÄ` x` x ÐThe€violation€of€this€condition€alone€is€sufficient€to€warrant€the€revocation€of€the€appellantððsÐ `° Ðprobation€and€judicial€diversion.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€also€found,€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence,€that€the€appellant€wasÐ $ t Ðin€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia€when€he€was€arrested€by€Officer€Randolph.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ  ` ÐAnn.€ðð€39„17„425(a)(1)€(1997).€€In€the€appellantððs€shirt€pocket,€Officer€Randolph€found€a€cut„offÐ ü L  Ðstraw.€€At€the€hearing,€both€the€appellant€and€Cline€claimed€that€they€regularly€cut€straws€in€orderÐ è 8  Ðfor€their€three„year„old€daughter€to€drink€more€easily€from€a€cup€while€sitting€in€her€car€seat.€Ð Ô$  ÐHowever,€Captain€Emerton€testified€that,€based€on€his€experience€in€the€field€of€illegal€drugs,€theÐ À  Ðitem€ð ðwas€a€small€piece€of€cut€off€straw€that€is€used€for€inhaling€narcotics€through€the€nose.ðð€€ò òó óOfficerÐ ¬ü  ÐRandolph€also€testified€that€the€straw€could€be€used€for€inhaling€various€types€of€controlledÐ ˜è  Ðsubstances.€€Additionally,€the€officers€found€ð ðforeign€medicineðð€in€the€truck€that€had€not€beenÐ „Ô  Ðidentified€by€the€time€of€the€hearing.€€Moreover,€although€the€officer€did€not€detect€the€smell€ofÐ pÀ Ðalcohol,€the€appellant€appeared€intoxicated€when€the€officers€found€the€straw€on€his€person.€€WhileÐ \¬ Ðthis€evidence€alone€may€be€insufficient€to€sustain€a€conviction€for€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia,Ð H˜ Ðit€is€sufficient€for€the€trial€court€to€find€the€offense€òòby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceóó.€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€trial€court€also€found€that€the€appellant€had€fraudulently€obtained€his€stepsonððsÐ  \ Ðmedication,€a€controlled€substance,€in€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€53„11„402(a)(3)€(1997).€Ð øH ÐSummarizing€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Clough€and€Moss,€the€evidence€showed€that,€under€suspiciousÐ ä4 Ðcircumstances,€the€appellant€and€Cline€removed€Bolesðð€medication€from€school€claiming€theyÐ Ð  Ðwanted€to€take€Boles€off€the€medication€while€almost€simultaneously€requesting€additionalÐ ¼  Ðprescriptions€from€Dr.€Clough.€€We€conclude€that€this€evidence€is€adequate€to€support€the€trialÐ ¨ø Ðcourtððs€finding€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€appellantððs€probation€and€judicialÐ ”ä Ðdiversion€should€be€revoked.Ð €Ð ÐÌà@))ìàD.€€Trial€Courtððs€RulingˆÐ X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àAs€his€final€issue,€the€appellant€complains€that€ð ð[t]he€[t]rial€[c]ourt€erred€in€failingÐ D!” Ðto€hear€all€of€the€proof€before€forming€a[n]€opinion€on€the€case€because€due€process€requires€theÐ 0"€  Ð[t]rial€[c]ourt€to€weigh€all€proof€before€rendering€a€decision.ðð€€Specifically,€the€appellant€argues€that,Ð #l! Ðð ð[t]he€[t]rial€[c]ourt€in€response€to€a€hearsay€objection€from€the€State€expressed€a€premature€opinionÐ $X" Ðor€decision€in€the€instant€case€by€stating€ððit€doesnððt€matter€at€this€point,€but€I€will€listen€to€it.ðððð€theÐ ô$D # ÐState€contends€that€the€trial€court€was€merely€stating€that,€because€hearsay€testimony€had€previouslyÐ à%0!$ Ðbeen€introduced€during€the€probation€revocation€hearing,€the€introduction€of€additional€hearsayÐ Ì&"% Ðtestimony€would€have€little€effect€on€her€decision.€€After€reading€the€transcript€of€the€probationÐ ¸'#& Ðrevocation€hearing,€we€agree€with€the€State.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àà ` àCline€attempted€to€explain€one€instance€of€Bolesðð€missing€medication€by€relating€€thatÐ |*Ì%) ÐBoles€told€her€that€he€had€flushed€his€pills€down€the€toilet€so€that€he€could€keep€pennies€he€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðcollecting€for€school€in€the€bottle.€€The€State€objected,€arguing€that€Bolesðð€comments€to€Cline€wouldÐ ° Ðbe€hearsay.€€The€court€responded€by€saying€that€ððit€doesnððt€matter€at€this€point,€but€I€will€listen€to€it.ððÐ œì ÐIt€appears€that,€because€the€trial€judgeððs€comment€directly€followed€a€hearsay€objection€much€likeÐ ˆØ Ðthose€the€trial€court€had€previously€overruled,€the€trial€court€was€referring€to€the€admission€ofÐ tÄ Ðadditional€hearsay€testimony.€€Additionally,€we€note€that€testimony€similar€to€that€offered€by€ClineÐ `° Ðwas€previously€admitted,€without€objection,€through€Moss,€Bolesðð€teacher.€€Moreover,€the€trial€courtÐ L œ Ðclearly€stated€prior€to€her€ruling€that€ð ð[t]his€[c]ourt€has€heard€and€is€considering€all€the€evidence€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðhas€been€entered€into€this€record,€as€well€as€all€of€the€testimony€of€all€the€witnesses€in€this€case,€andÐ $ t Ðthe€closing€arguments€by€the€counsel€of€record.ðð€€Furthermore,€the€trial€judge€proceeded€to€detail€allÐ  ` Ðof€the€evidence€she€considered€in€reaching€her€decision.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€Ð ü L  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà@MM"ìàòòò òIII.€€ConclusionˆÐ Ô$  Ðà  àà ` àó óóóBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð pÀ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNORMA€McGEE€OGLE,€JUDGE