ÿWPC% r\ŠŠÝb(f˜ˆüЈ·hœ¸óEûf5Ô®d4c.‘ykÚüJˆAÖgü:c È®ŸÊ`qãüçŒÔšI”6øì~7"§FgÝ>ÚCÖ†wЈ/1š©Z]‰ñøŸ#k WÖaÝ'£¥â?Ô¦»í¦™ï‰ ¨= “ó?ktâ*z¦¡úüØx–A¶]âe~Kñ¥‡Î\³ëµ¹~ÝF 5>kò×–Qø)ÙŒzÑømhŒ nÿ>ä>?]ü†*J`²„=ðûIE¶Š3ª5WÞXSIGÍ~)¦?–òàQHy¾=•z/ó<ðÁC Âf›ØrxŽ‘ ¦!V£ 78¬Æ«ÜUTÊÉ-K!ÌTÙ û`̽ Dh H7‰fw²¶é¿ü4*(7ã§ZÉ/gÚ‡°¨øÚ£÷ø%ƒqr.JׯZ{¶€¢¥QFëFR°À5Np|« iñCIÕ0&Ù+ìT¹©G‡ÅDI MéV&münèˮþ~êäw#jÔT&÷`àm=.ÕŸ,BsC ÉüYZäýÖíKFn7£HŽx“ì/Žl?p >s@®—*©Ç蹕xåN801¤PÕÅ-eV…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c r U.z è¨ U: èÊ U:² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² ² Bì ì ì ì ì D3    0D<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< AO€ÆÏÏ 0D• D/Ù B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,Ù¹6 AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- _e`aDbecUdUeEfRgÓ€quM%3|xt%ä2¼A`ArialTT ÞÔ€ XŠXXXÔÔ€ µqX XŠÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XŠX µqÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€3,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÞÔ€XŠXXXÔÔ€µqXXŠÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XŠXµqÔÐ  ÐÌOctober€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñbñ›ñbññbññ^ñ›ñ^ññbñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€Š®ŠXXÔÔ€Š&´ŠŠŠ®ÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€u1XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñgñœñgññqññgñßr€ *<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` 8ttxPX` ð  rßñgññqññqñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E f ` 8ttxPX` ð  rßñqññgñ›ñgñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À àà  à)à p àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9802„CC„00065Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àó óÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellee,ò òà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àCANNON€COUNTYÐ `  ÐV.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)€€€€€€€Ð `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àHON.€DON€ASH,€JUDGEó óÐ ` Ðò òTHOMAS€MICHAEL€DAVENPORT,à  à)€€€€€€€ó óà p àÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò òà  à)à p à(REVOCATION€OF€ó óà Ð àÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À àò òà  à)à p àSUSPENDED€SENTENCE)€Ð ` Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð Hè ÐÌò òGUY€R.€DOTSON,€JR.à h àà À àà  àà p àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ð 8 Ø Ðó ó102€South€Maple€Streetà h àà À àà  àà p àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ 8!Ø ÐMurfreesboro,€TN€37130€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àò òà h àà À àà  àà p àTIMOTHY€BEHANÐ (#È Ðó óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ ($È Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òWILLIAM€C.€WHITESELL,€JR.Ð )   Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àó óDistrict€Attorney€General€Ð *  ! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àò òJOHN€W.€PRICE,€IIIó óÐ ð+"# Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à303€Rutherford€County€Judicial€Bldg.€Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àMurfreesboro,€TN€37130€ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÐ  80/0 ÐÓ  ÓÔ€°Oæ°ŠŠ&´Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€Š&´Š°°OæÔÐ `  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àà ¸ àThe€Defendant,€Thomas€Michael€Davenport,€appeals€as€of€right€fromÏthe€trial€courtððs€order€revoking€his€probation.€€In€this€appeal,€Defendant€argues€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€by€admitting€into€evidence€a€laboratory€report€in€violation€of€hisÏconstitutional€rights€to€confront€and€cross„examine€witnesses€and€by€concluding€thatÏthe€evidence€was€sufficient€to€show€a€violation€of€the€terms€of€his€probation.€€WeÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€March€15,€1996,€Defendant€pled€guilty€to€burglary€in€the€CircuitÏCourt€of€Cannon€County.€€A€sentencing€hearing€was€subsequently€held,€and€onÏAugust€16,€1996,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€sentencing€Defendant€to€serve€twoÏ(2)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€sentence€was€then€suspended€andÏhe€was€placed€on€intensive€supervised€probation.€€On€August€12,€1997,€a€warrantÏwas€issued€alleging€that€Defendant€violated€his€probation€by€testing€positive€forÏmarijuana€on€July€9,€1997,€and€on€July€22,€1997.€€The€trial€court€held€a€hearing€onÏthe€probation€violation€warrant€on€October€6,€1997.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àChristie€McGee,€an€intern€with€the€probation€office€in€Murfreesboro,Ïtestified€that€one€of€her€duties€was€to€run€drug€screens€on€probationers.€€She€was€Ïa€senior€at€Middle€Tennessee€State€University€and€had€received€training€onÏperforming€drug€screens€and€had€passed€a€test€on€the€procedure.€€She€workedÏunder€the€supervision€of€probation€department€personnel.€€She€tested€urine€samplesÏprovided€by€the€Defendant€on€July€9€and€July€22,€1997.€€Both€tests€were€positive€forÏmarijuana.€€The€documentation€of€the€screenings€were€admitted€into€evidenceÏwithout€objection€from€Defendant.Ð ¶9V01 Їà ` àà ¸ àWilliam€James€Scollon,€an€employee€of€the€intensive€supervision€unitÏof€ñ]ñœñ]ñthe€Department€of€Correctionñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€probation€office€in€Murfreesboro,€testified€thatÏDefendant€was€ñ]ñœñ]ñone€of€his€probationers.€€Heñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€testified€concerning€his€supervision€ofÏMs.€McGee€in€administering€the€drug€screening€test€at€the€probation€ñ]ñœñ]ñoffice.€€He€alsoÏexplainedñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€how€the€remaining€ñ]ñœñ]ñportion€of€each€specimenñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€was€placed€into€another€cup,Ïsealed,€ñ]ñœñ]ñand€initialedñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€by€the€ñ]ñœñ]ñprobationer.€€The€cup€was€thenñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€placed€in€a€pouch€thatÏñ]ñœñ]ñwasñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€again€ñ]ñœñ]ñsealedñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€and€ñ]ñœñ]ñthen€frozenñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€until€a€courier€could€pick€up€the€specimen€to€beÏtransported€for€further€testing€by€a€laboratory.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDr.€Timothy€Albert€Robert,€assistant€laboratory€director€at€AegisÏAnalytical€Laboratories,€Inc.€in€Nashville,€Tennessee,€testified€that€he€has€a€Ph.D.Ïin€microbiotic€medical€science.€€Dr.€Robert€is€responsible€for€the€daily€operations€ofÏall€aspects€of€the€laboratory.€€Among€his€duties,€he€ñ]ñœñ]ñservesñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€as€the€certifying€scientistÏfor€positive€test€results,€reviewing€all€aspects€of€the€testing.€€He€explained€that€theÏAegis€Laboratory€ñ]ñœñ]ñusesñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€a€reagent€test€system€which€generates€quantitative€testÏresults.€€The€sample€is€first€tested€on€an€Immunoassay€test,€and€if€that€is€positive,Ïa€Gas€Chromatography/Mass€Spectrometry€test€is€administered€on€the€specimen€asÏconfirmation.€€He€further€explained€that€specimens€are€received€in€the€lab€throughÏa€courier€system€and€are€processed€by€ñ]ñœñ]ña€receivingñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€and€accessioning€ñ]ñœñ]ñstaffñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€whoÏmatch€up€identification€on€the€specimen€with€necessary€paperwork,€verify€theÏintactness€of€seals,€and€log€the€demographics€or€patient€information€into€theÏcomputer€system€of€the€lab.€€A€portion€of€the€specimen€is€then€removed€from€the€ñcñÌÌÌâ âÐ à7€.0 Ðñcñcontainer€for€analyzation€by€a€licensed€technologist€in€the€laboratory.€€A€chain€ofÏâ âcustody€document€is€generated€to€account€for€all€stages€in€the€processing€of€theÏlaboratory.€€In€addition€to€training€all€of€the€staff€and€ensuring€that€quality€assuranceÏand€control€procedures€are€undertaken,€Dr.€ñ]ñœñ]ñRobert€personallyñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€examines€test€resultsÏto€make€the€determination€of€whether€a€test€is€positive€or€negative.€€He€testified€thatÏhe€personally€examined€the€test€results€involving€the€Defendant€and€certified€ñ]ñœñ]ñthemÏbyñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€ñ]ñœñ]ñaffixingñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€his€signature€to€the€report.€€Dr.€ñ]ñœñ]ñRobert€testifiedñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€that€he€was€familiar€withÏthe€records€of€Aegis€Laboratory€and€that€he€maintained€those€records€in€his€custody.€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€Defendant€interposed€an€objection€to€the€lab€result€being€admittedÏinto€evidence.€€His€counsel€argued€that€the€report€was€hearsay.€€Defendant€arguedÏto€the€trial€court€that€even€though€Dr.€Robert€could€certify€the€document€from€theÏtechnician,€he€could€not€certify€that€the€test€was€conducted€properly.€€DefendantÏargued€that€Dr.€Black,€who€ñ]ñœñ]ñhad€also€signed€the€report€and€had€apparentlyñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€performedÏthe€test,€was€not€available€to€testify.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€reports€of€the€laboratory€were€admitted€into€evidence€overÏDefendantððs€objection€as€stated€above.€€Each€report€states€that€the€specimen€wasÏpositive€for€marijuana€at€a€concentration€of€greater€than€135€nanograms€per€milliliter.€ÏÌà ` àà ¸ àDuring€cross„examination,€the€following€ñ]ñœñ]ñcolloquñ_ñiñ_ññ`ñyñ`ññañalñaññ]ñ›ñ]ñ€occurred€betweenÏdefense€counsel€and€Dr.€Robert:ÌÌÓÓà8 ` àQ.à0¸ ` (#` (#àIððm€trying€to€make€sure€Iððve€got€this€understood.€€The€laboratoryÐ ð5,. Ðguy,€whoever€does€the€test,€does€the€test,€and€he€brings€you€a€ñdñÐ ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðñdññeññdñà ` àà ¸ àñdññeññfñà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àñfñpiece€of€paper€showing€you€the€results;€is€that€really€howÏit€comes€out?Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌà8 ` àA.à0¸ ` (#` (#àYes.€€I€have€copies€of€the€data€with€me,€but€I€receive€the€originalÐ H è Ðdata€as€generated€from€the€activities€of€the€technicians€andÏlaboratory€staff€in€the€testing€processes€that€occur€in€theÏlaboratory.€€So€all€of€the€data€is€accumulated€and€gathered€andÏpresented€to€me€in€what€we€call€a€job€jacket,€and€I€review€all€theÏcomponents€of€the€testing,€the€results,€chain€of€custodyÏdocumentation€that€is€associated€with€the€specimens€that€areÏundergoing€analysis€and€the€quality€control€data€thatððs€generatedÏin€association€with€those€tests.€€And€if€I€find€it€acceptable€by€ourÏlaboratory€established€procedures,€I€then€certify€the€results.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÓ%ÓÌñ]ñœñ]ñDr.ñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€Robert€confirmed€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€technicians€who€perform€the€testsÏand€with€their€various€degrees€of€certification€and€training.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€Defendant€testified€and€denied€that€he€had€used€marijuana.€€HeÏadmitted€that€he€may€have€breathed€some€marijuana€from€second„hand€smoke€whileÏhe€was€in€the€presence€of€his€ñ]ñœñ]ñsister€who€was€smoking€marijuana.ñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àDr.€Robert€was€called€in€rebuttal€by€the€State.€€Without€objection€byÏdefense€counsel,€Dr.€Robert€testified€that€he€had€read€several€articles€which€hadÏappeared€in€scientific€literature€associated€with€studies€addressing€the€issue€ofÏpassive€inhalation€of€marijuana€smoke.€€He€testified€that€ñ]ñœñ]ñthe€studiesñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€showed€thatÏlevels€of€specimens€from€people€who€had€been€subjected€to€passive€inhalation€wereÏunder€100€nanograms€per€milliliter.€€He€further€testified€that€Chromatography/MassÏSpectrometry€results€on€Defendantððs€July€9€specimen€had€a€value€of€379€nanogramsÏper€milliliter.€€He€did€not€testify€as€to€the€specific€level€on€the€July€22€specimen.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àOn€each€written€report€from€Aegis€Laboratory€which€was€admitted€intoÏevidence,€Defendant€had€signed€his€name€and€dated€the€initial€ð ðchain€of€custody€andÐ Ø8x/1 Ðrequest€formðð€directly€below€a€printed€statement€on€the€form€that€included€theÏñ]ñœñ]ñlanguage€Ô‡ Š"~ŠŠŠöéÔthatñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€Defendant€certified€that€he€provided€the€urine€specimen€to€theÐ P ð Ðcollector€and€that€the€specimen€was€in€the€collection€container€marked€with€anÏidentification€number€identical€to€the€number€on€the€form.€€The€form€further€statedÏthat€the€collection€container€was€sealed€with€a€tamper„evidence€seal€in€his€presence.€ÏEach€of€the€reports€had€the€correct€identifying€number.€Ô#†Šö銊 Š"~D/#ÔÐ x  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àDefendant€relies€primarily€upon€the€cases€of€òòState€v.€Wadeóó,€863€S.W.2dÐ p Ð406€(Tenn.€1993)€and€òòState€v.€Gregoryóó,€946€S.W.2d€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€ñ]ñœñ]ñ1997),ñ]ñ›ñ]ñÐ ` Ðin€arguing€that€the€laboratory€test€results€were€erroneously€admitted€into€evidence.€ÏÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòWadeóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€under€the€United€StatesÐ 0Ð ÐConstitution,€the€State€is€not€entitled€to€revoke€probation€ð ðbased€ñ]ñœñ]ñonñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€an€unidentifiedÏlaboratory€test€admitted€into€evidence€without€a€finding€of€good€cause€and€proof€ofÏthe€reliability€of€the€test€report.ðð€€ñ]ñœòòóóñ]ñ863€S.W.2d€atñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€410.€€Furthermore,€the€supreme€courtÏheld€that€€the€record€in€that€case€did€not€meet€the€minimal€due€process€requirementsÏof€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€Article€I,€Section€9.€€The€court€specifically€held:ÌÓÓÌà8 ` àThe€report€was€not€admissible€into€evidence€because€there€was€noÏshowing€of€good€cause,€and,€had€there€been€a€showing€of€good€cause,Ïthe€revocation€of€probation€based€on€the€uncorroborated€report€whichÏcontains€no€significant€indicia€of€reliability,€could€not€be€sustained.Ð ` (#` (# ÐÌòòIdóó.Ð  0@'( ЀÌÓÒ4ÓÌñ]ñœñ]ñTheñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€ð ðgood€causeðð€refers€to€the€denial€of€a€defendantððs€right€to€confront€and€cross„¼examine€the€technician€that€prepared€the€report€introduced€into€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€at€409.Ð p6-. ÐÐ `8/0 Ðà ` àà ¸ àIn€òòGregoryóó,€our€court€affirmed€the€revocation€of€probation€by€the€trialÐ `  Ðcourt€and€distinguished€the€facts€in€that€case€from€the€factual€situation€in€òòWadeóó.€Ð P ð ÐSpecifically,€in€òòGregoryóó,€the€record€identified€the€person€who€conducted€the€test,€theÐ @ à Ðmethod€of€testing,€the€testerððs€qualifications,€the€scientific€reliability€of€the€testingÏmethod,€and€that€the€test€was€conducted€under€established€and€reliable€procedures.€Ïñ]ñœñ]ñ946€S.W.2d€atñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€832.€€ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àFurthermore,€in€òòGregoryóó,€there€was€ñ]ñœñ]ñnoñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€live€testimony€of€a€certifyingÐ ð  Ðscientist€of€the€laboratory.€€ñ]ñœñ]ñInstead,ñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€an€affidavit€of€the€ð ðCertifying€Scientistðð€ñ]ñœñ]ñwasÏadmittedñ]ñ›ñ]ñ€into€evidence€certifying€the€result€to€be€ð ðreliable€and€accurate.ðð€€In€addition,Ïthe€affidavit€provided€the€qualifications€of€the€person€who€certified€the€drug€test,€aÏspecific€description€of€the€method€of€testing,€a€statement€that€the€method€was€theÏmost€accurate€test€for€the€particular€drug€which€tested€ð ðpositive,ðð€a€certification€thatÏthe€test€results€were€reliable€and€accurate,€and€a€declaration€that€all€establishedÏprocedures€and€protocols€were€followed.€€òòIdóó.Ð €$  ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àDespite€Defendantððs€assertion€that€Dr.€Black€was€the€one€whoÏperformed€the€test,€our€review€of€the€lab€report€indicates€that€Dr.€David€L.€Black,ÏPh.D.,€signed€the€report€as€a€ð ðdirector€of€laboratories.ðð€€There€was€no€specificÏtestimony€in€the€record€as€to€the€identity€of€the€technician€who€actually€performed€theÏtest.€€ÌÌñ]ñœ›ñ]ñà ` àà ¸ àOur€court€stated€in€ñ]ñœñ]ñòòGregoryñ]ñóóòòñ]ñóó€as€follows:Ð 4 *, ÐÓÓÌà8 ` àòòWadeóó€held€that€the€state€could€not€revoke€probation€based€upon€anÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðò òunidentifiedó ó€laboratory€report€admitted€into€evidence€without€a€finding€Ð à7€.0 Ðof€good€cause€as€to€the€absence€of€the€laboratory€technician€and€proofÏof€the€reliability€of€the€test€report.ÐØ9x02` (#` (# Ї946€S.W.2d€at€831,€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÓ>ÓÌà ` àà ¸ àThe€laboratory€reports€admitted€into€evidence€were€identified€throughÏthe€testimony€of€Dr.€Robert.€€In€òòWadeóó,€the€State€simply€submitted€an€ð ðunidentifiedððÐ 0Ð Ðlaboratory€report€as€its€sole€evidence€of€violation€of€probation€by€the€defendant.€€InÐ  À ÐòòGregoryóó,€an€affidavit€of€the€ð ðcertifying€scientistðð€from€the€laboratory€was€admittedÐ °  Ðalong€with€the€report€of€the€laboratory€results.€€As€discussed€above,€Dr.€Robert€moreÏthan€substantially€complied€with€the€requirements€to€establish€the€reliability€of€theÏlaboratory€report€admitted€into€evidence.€€Implicit€in€his€testimony€was€the€fact€thatÏa€qualified€technician€of€Aegis€Laboratories€had€performed€the€tests.€€The€results€Ïfrom€the€raw€data€had€been€examined€and€approved€by€Dr.€Robert.€€DefendantððsÏcounsel€was€allowed€the€opportunity€to€thoroughly€cross„examine€Dr.€Robert,€theÏð ðcertifying€scientist.ðð€€Dr.€Robert€was€able€to€specifically€rebut€the€testimony€ofÏDefendant€that€his€tests€were€positive€from€passive€inhalation.€€The€laboratoryÏreports€and€the€testimony€of€Dr.€Robert€were€properly€admitted€into€evidence€andÏtherefore€we€decline€to€grant€Defendant€relief€on€his€first€issue.ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àIn€his€other€issue,€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏconcluding€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€show€a€violation€of€the€conditions€of€hisÏprobation.€€As€is€usual,€the€conditions€of€probation€required€the€Defendant€toÏmaintain€ð ðgood€and€lawful€conduct.ðð€€During€his€testimony,€Defendant€acknowledgedÏthat€he€was€aware€that€use€of€marijuana€was€illegal.€€The€laboratory€reports€whichÏwere€admitted€into€evidence,€along€with€the€initial€positive€drug€screen€results€takenÏby€the€probation€officers€were€sufficient€evidence€to€justify€revocation€of€probation.€ÏThe€trial€judge€does€not€need€to€find€a€violation€of€the€terms€of€probation€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt.€€The€evidence€must€only€show€that€the€judge€has€exercised€aÐ Ð9p02 Ðconscientious€judgment€in€making€the€decision€rather€than€acting€arbitrarily.€ÏòòGregoryóó,€946€S.W.2d€at€832.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€not€to€be€disturbedÐ P ð Ðon€appeal€unless€it€appears€that€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€discretion€where€theÏrecord€contains€no€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion.€€òòStateÐ 0Ð Ðv.€Leachóó,€914€S.W.2d€104€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð  À ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àWe€conclude€that€there€was€ample€evidence€to€support€the€trial€courtððsÏrevocation€of€probation€in€this€case.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€Judge