ÿWPC" >†—k)NI(jóa\1¡ÁðÒò‰iÞ7ÂDK(åðyyÂêÜÿ :™Öáªf!¸cÒ¸WÁEê‹èIÉKhÕ¾oWøð—é©Èâ]!5(T»°Þ– }Ãø¿..×”i&Põç!Z/ªÊzŸ»¿–éLÚ_QƒIœoOÒá‹ gO|6éU®{(oË­J0ÐZEO»KbRËô°“È÷Õ¢ÔÓÏÛ&G9ÇÏáMœ Œ*Ó µ=:lüpQöqÝÖ¯` [c¢„±`†|Ý~fy\Fàãäñîuî»Û ¥ö:sy sÝNâ;÷À "v’Ý8öqw Â)õ1’T/%ÂàBÖ-õdä燑XdoAx«Üë–Cu¡záyÏ|-±°ÒmëÒ﫪¥“’ÂÅ4ÝF”¯ÛÖÝíç·©ÿâk}W©¿lª#sÚ—=cj(®™]Eˆ¾ÇÖ˜ …ÐEt Ö(%Î×È2T…°w9@7,}ÆbEv;Ð=/ó*ºc'‚ËÜ Þ¸ÏÝeo;Lˆ¼%f‡^‰1u£É­(èiç‚ x¤!AI¾lŠ’þØ23ØF¤Nbñô¤r¦vm0*XqÈ7äv³òÁ‡vyÝQ•‡·ý% Yu,ƒö”Ôb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ 0Å™ Æ^ Æ$Æêư 0¡vN 0DN]E_ 0Ña 0³2 0­å 0§’E9 0›~ 0• 1u® 72#˜UUUUUUUUUUUUUbííííííííí 0Yõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõõ 1eN 0N³³³³³³³³³³ 0ë Bìì 0¤  D3­ D-à 0K   ASXÆ« 0¤q 0D! A«Y!˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0»’l/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.ê:i¢×+00 ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ*AA ÿÿ(_17Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*// ÿÿ(_12Ó  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÓ  Ó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó*GG ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÓ ° Ó*88 ÿÿ(_15Ó  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÓ  Ó*55 ÿÿ(_14Ó ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÓ ` Ó*22 ÿÿ(_13Ó ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÓ ¸ Ó ;Ý ƒRø\$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹tò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCiting€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274,€279€(Tenn.€2000),€and€òòState€v.€Martinóó,€964€S.W.2d€564,€567€(Tenn.Ð ° Ð1998),€the€defendant€argues€on€appeal€that€the€State€did€not€follow€the€proper€procedure€in€seeking€to€utilize€theÐ qÁ Ðpreliminary€hearing€testimony€as€a€prior€statement€of€White€and,€even€if€the€statement€were€admissible,€it€could€not€beÐ 2‚ Ðused€as€substantive€evidence.€€As€the€defendant€anticipated,€we€initially€distinguish€the€holding€in€òòMartinóó€because€it€dealtÐ óC Ðwith€use€of€a€prior€statement€under€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€613,€rather€than€Rule€804,€as€was€the€case€in€the€presentÐ ´ Ðappeal.€€Additionally,€we€distinguish€these€holdings€because€the€evidentiary€issues€in€both€arose€during€a€jury€trial,€ratherÐ uÅ Ðthan,€as€in€the€present€case,€a€probation€revocation€hearing,€where€the€rules€of€evidence€are€more€flexible.*,, ÿÿ(_11Ó h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó pÈ xÐ ÓÓ h Ó*)) ÿÿ(_10Ó À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€ÓppÈ xÐ ÓÓ À Ó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) DeVasherYarbroughHousel T.R. d]ob]ecause s]he PHTMapcoHarkinsStubblefield Delpd]emonstratesBaldonByrgeGinsuc]learlyT]hat t]hebatterersdeclarant- ù-6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô  ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(|G2ø\$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€˜é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¹tò»»Ô d(|3?#$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€˜é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?#$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€˜é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€˜é»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼˜é»»»ÔÑ8€ÅgXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îtÆî»¼˜éÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼˜é»îîtÆ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€16,€2003Ð öF ÐÔ‡XÅgX»¼˜éÔÌò òÔ#†¼˜é»XXÅg#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JOSEPH€L.€ROBINSON,€JR.òòóóÔ‡XÅgX»¼˜éÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€2002„B„628€€€€€€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02497„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€November€5,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant€appeals€the€revocation€of€his€probation,€arguing€that€the€evidence€was€insufficientÐ V¦  Ðfor€the€revocation€and€the€trial€court€erroneously€considered€as€evidence€both€the€victimððsÐ ? Ðpreliminary€hearing€testimony€and€an€earlier€written€statement€she€had€made.€€We€agree€that€the€trialÐ (x Ðcourt€erred€in€considering€the€victimððs€written€statement€but€conclude€the€error€was€harmlessÐ a Ðbecause€other€evidence,€including€her€preliminary€hearing€testimony,€provided€sufficient€basis€toÐ úJ Ðrevoke€the€defendantððs€probation.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€order€of€the€trial€court.€Ð ã3 ÐÔ#†¼˜é»XXÅg#ÔÔ‡XÅgX»¼˜éÔÓÎÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ µ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼˜é»àXÅg»#ÔÔ‡XÅgX.¼˜éÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòThomas€T.Ð ˆØ ÐÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð qÁ ÐÌRoss€E.€Alderman,€District€Public€Defender;€Jeffrey€A.€DeVasher,€Assistant€Public€Defender€(onÐ C“ Ðappeal);€and€Jonathan€Farmer,€Assistant€Public€Defender€(at€trial),€for€the€appellant,€Joseph€L.Ð ,| ÐRobinson,€Jr.Ð e ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Helena€Walton€Yarbrough,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ ç 7  ÐGeneral;€Victor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Deborah€Housel,€Assistant€DistrictÐ Ð! ! ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ô#†¼˜é»XXÅg‡#ÔÔ‡XÅgX»¼˜éԀР¹" " ÐÓXÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼˜é»XXÅg» #ÔÔ‡XÅgX»¼˜éÔÐ ‹$Û$ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼˜é»XXÅgC #ÔÔ€XÅgX»¼˜éÔò òòòÓ  ÓÓ  ÓFACTSó óóóÐ ^&®!& ÐÌÓÒ Óà  àOn€July€2,€2002,€the€defendant,€Joseph€L.€Robinson,€Jr.,€pled€guilty€to€domestic€assaultÐ 1(#( Ð(count€one),€possession€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€under€.5€grams€of€a€Schedule€II€controlledÐ )j$) Ðsubstance€(count€two),€and€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia€(count€three).€€The€defendant€wasÐ *S%* Ðsentenced€to€concurrent€terms€of€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€for€counts€one€and€three€and€fiveÐ ì*<&+ Ðyears€for€count€two,€all€suspended€except€for€twenty€consecutive€weekends€with€the€balance€to€beÐ Õ+%', Ðserved€on€probation.€€Additionally,€he€was€ordered€to€attend€a€fifty„two„week€batterers€interventionÐ ¾,(- Ðprogram,€and€his€first€year€of€probation€was€to€be€intensive€supervised€probation.€€Three€weeks€afterÐ §-÷(.ý ÐÔ_Ôthe€defendant€was€placed€on€probation,€he€was€arrested€for€one€count€of€aggravated€assault€and€threeÐ ° Ðcounts€of€child€neglect.€€As€a€result,€Helen€Howard,€the€defendantððs€probation€officer,€filed€aÐ ™é Ðviolation€of€probation€affidavit.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà  àAt€the€defendantððs€August€30,€2002,€probation€revocation€hearing,€Helen€Howard€testifiedÐ T¤ Ðthat€she€filed€a€probation€violation€affidavit€because€of€his€arrest€for€aggravated€assault€and€childÐ =  Ðneglect€the€previous€month.€€On€cross„examination,€Howard€stated€that,€during€the€three€weeks€theÐ & v Ðdefendant€had€been€on€probation,€he€reported€twice€a€week,€as€ordered,€and€maintained€employment.€Ð  _ ÐShe€acknowledged€that€the€sole€reason€for€her€seeking€revocation€of€his€probation€was€his€arrest€inÐ ø H ÐJuly€on€new€charges.Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àAfter€Howardððs€testimony,€the€State€rested.€€Defense€counsel€argued€that€there€was€no€basisÐ ³  Ðfor€revoking€the€defendantððs€probation€because€the€State€presented€no€evidence€of€the€new€chargesÐ œì  Ðand€his€probation€could€not€be€revoked€simply€because€he€had€been€rearrested.€€The€State€thenÐ …Õ  Ðcalled,€as€a€witness,€Christina€White,€whose€complaint€ostensibly€had€resulted€in€the€defendantððsÐ n¾  ÐJuly€arrest.Ð W§  ÐÌà  àWhite€testified€that€on€July€23,€2002,€her€three„year„old€daughter€called€9„1„1.€€Asked€whatÐ )y Ðhad€happened€that€day,€White€responded,€ð ðI€donððt€know.€.€.€.€€I€canððt€remember€what€happened.ðð€Ð b ÐWhen€the€court€asked€her€what€she€meant€by€that€statement,€she€said,€ð ðBecause€Iððve€had€a€nervousÐ ûK Ðbreakdown€and€I€donððt€know€ð!ð€I€canððt€remember€the€details€of€that€night.ðð€€She€acknowledged€thatÐ ä4 Ða€police€officer€came€to€her€house€in€response€to€her€daughterððs€9„1„1€call,€she€ð ðwavedðð€at€theÐ Í Ðofficer,€he€left,€and€she€then€went€inside€her€house€where€the€defendant€ð ðwas€standing€downstairs.ðð€Ð ¶ ÐÌÓ*°,XƒXŒ –X°œX*Óà  àThe€State€continued€with€its€questioning€of€White:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà0Œ ` x` xàWhen€you€walked€in€the€house€and€he€was€standing€downstairs,Ð Zª Ðwhat€did€he€do?€€Did€he€approach€you?ÐC“Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà0Œ ` x` xàHe€didnððt€do€it.ÐeŒ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà0Œ ` x` xàPardon€me?Ðç 7Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà0Œ ` x` xàHe€didnððt€do€it.й" !Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà0Œ ` x` xàHe€didnððt€do€it?Ћ$Û#Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà0Œ ` x` xàNo.Ð]&­!%Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€.€Ð/(#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà0Œ ` x` xàAnd€there€was€a€warrant€that€was€taken€out;€right?Ð*Q%)Œ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAà0Œ ` x` xàYes.ÐÓ+#'+Œ xŒ x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àQà0Œ ` x` xàOkay.€Did€he€get€a€knife€and€put€it€on€your€throat?аŒ xŒ x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[DEFENSE€COUNSEL]:€€Your€Honor,€I€object€to€that.ЂÒ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àTHE€WITNESS:€€He€didnððt€do€it.€€He€didnððt€do€anything.€€He€didnððtÐ T¤ Ðdo€it.€€I€donððt€know.Ð= ` x` x ÐÌà  àAt€this€point,€the€trial€court€stopped€the€questioning€of€White€and€postponed€the€hearing€toÐ  _ Ða€later€date.€€Then,€the€trial€court€asked€whether€the€defendantððs€charges€had€been€bound€over€to€theÐ ø H Ðgrand€jury€after€a€preliminary€hearing,€which€the€State€said€was€correct€and€that€White€had€testifiedÐ á 1  Ðat€that€hearing.€€The€State€informed€the€trial€court€that€the€preliminary€hearing€had€been€tape„Ð Ê   Ðrecorded,€and€the€court€requested€the€State€to€bring€the€tape€to€the€next€hearing€date.Ð ³  ÐÌà  àOn€September€4,€2002,€at€the€continuation€of€the€revocation€hearing,€the€tape€and€a€transcriptÐ …Õ  Ðof€Whiteððs€testimony€at€the€preliminary€hearing€were€produced€by€the€State,€over€the€objection€ofÐ n¾  Ðdefense€counsel€who€argued€that€both€were€hearsay€evidence.€€Referring€to€Whiteððs€appearance€atÐ W§  Ðthe€previous€revocation€hearing,€the€court€said,€ð ðShe€was€very€emotional€and€upset€and€distraught.€Ð @ ÐAnd€.€.€.€I€could€sense€that€she€was€under€extreme€stress€and€pressure€and€emotions€at€the€time€ofÐ )y Ðthe€hearing.€.€.€.€€[S]he€was,€in€her€emotional€state[,]€unavailable€to€testify€at€that€time€FridayÐ b Ðmorning€[the€first€day€of€the€hearing].ðð€€The€court€then€took€under€advisement€the€defendantððsÐ ûK Ðobjection€€until€after€the€court€had€listened€to€the€tape,€a€copy€of€which€is€included€in€the€record€onÐ ä4 Ðappeal.Ð Í Ѐ€€€€€à  à€Ð ¶ Ðà  àThe€tape€reveals€that€at€the€defendantððs€preliminary€hearing,€White€testified€she€and€theÐ Ÿï Ðdefendant€were€living€together€and€had€children€together.€€She€said€that€on€July€23,€2002,€she€andÐ ˆØ Ðthe€defendant€were€arguing€when€her€three„year„old€daughter€dialed€9„1„1€and€then€hung€up€theÐ qÁ Ðtelephone.€€The€defendant€then€informed€White€that€the€police€had€called€their€home€in€response€toÐ Zª Ðthe€9„1„1€call.€€White€left€the€home€to€ð ðrun€over€to€Mapco,ðð€and,€when€she€returned,€a€police€officerÐ C“ Ðpulled€up€and€asked€if€everything€was€all€right€because€ð ðthey€had€a€911€hang„up€call.ðð€€After€WhiteÐ ,| Ðtold€the€officer€that€everything€was€fine€and€that€ð ð[t]he€baby€was€just€playing€with€the€phone,ðð€theÐ e Ðofficer€left€the€premises.Ð þN ÐÌà  àWhite€then€went€inside€the€house€through€the€back€door.€€The€defendant€grabbed€her€armÐ Ð!   Ðand,€holding€a€kitchen€knife€to€her€throat,€began€screaming,€ð ðWhy€is€there€a€cop€out€front[?]€€WhatÐ ¹" ! Ðdid€you€call€the€police€for€this€time€on€me€for?ðð€€He€continued€ð ðranting€and€ravingðð€but€eventuallyÐ ¢#ò" Ðallowed€her€to€leave€to€go€to€an€ATM€machine€at€the€Mapco€store.€€At€the€store,€she€flagged€downÐ ‹$Û# Ða€police€officer€and€informed€him€of€the€matter.€€She€waited€for€the€officerððs€lieutenant€to€arriveÐ t%Ä $ Ðwhich€took€about€one€and€a€half€to€two€hours.€€Subsequently,€White€saw€the€defendantððs€car€at€theÐ ]&­!% ÐMapco€and€notified€the€officer€of€his€location.Ð F'–"& ÐÌà  àWhite€said€that€her€three€children€remained€with€the€defendant€at€their€home€when€she€leftÐ )h$( Ðthe€second€time.€€About€three€minutes€after€the€defendant€arrived€at€the€Mapco,€she€returned€toÐ *Q%) Ðcheck€on€her€children,€who€ð ðwere€fine.ðð€€She€also€said€that€the€police€came€to€her€home,€filled€outÐ ê*:&* Ðan€incident€report,€and€questioned€her€daughter€who€called€9„1„1.€€White€said€that,€during€the€courseÐ Ó+#'+ Ðof€this€incident,€she€was€afraid€the€defendant€was€going€to€harm€her,€and€she€later€filed€for€an€orderÐ ° Ðof€protection.Ð ™é ÐÌà  àAt€the€preliminary€hearing,€the€court€found€probable€cause€to€bind€the€charges€of€aggravatedÐ k» Ðassault€and€three€counts€of€child€neglect€over€to€the€grand€jury.Ð T¤ ÐÌà  àBy€written€order€entered€September€9,€2002,€the€trial€court€revoked€the€defendantððsÐ & v Ðprobation:Ð  _ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àThe€Court€has€now€considered€the€argument€of€counsel€for€theÐ á 1  ÐState€and€the€defendant,€reviewed€the€prior€criminal€record€of€theÐ Ê   Ðdefendant€and€heard€the€testimony€of€Christina€White.€€While€Ms.Ð ³  ÐWhite€was€not€completely€clear€of€the€events€which€led€to€theÐ œì  Ðrevocation€warrant,€and€in€fact€recanted€some€of€her€previousÐ …Õ  Ðallegations,€the€Court€has€now€listened€to€the€tape€recording€of€theÐ n¾  Ðpreliminary€hearing€where€Ms.€White€testified€and€reviewed€theÐ W§  Ðhandwritten€statement€of€Ms.€White€which€she€submitted€with€herÐ @ ÐPetition€for€an€Order€of€Protection€regarding€the€events€of€July€23,Ð )y Ðand€is€of€the€opinion€that€under€all€of€the€circumstances€that€theÐ b Ðprobation€violation€should€be€sustained.ÐûK` x` x ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓANALYSISó óóóÐ Í ÐÌò òÓí3ÓÓ  ÓA.€€€€€Standard€of€Reviewó óÐ  ð ÐÌÓ04Óà  àA€trial€court€is€granted€broad€authority€to€revoke€a€suspended€sentence€and€reinstate€theÐ sà Ðoriginal€sentence€if€it€finds€by€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€has€violated€theÐ \¬ Ðterms€of€his€or€her€probation€and€suspension€of€sentence.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„35„310,€„311Ð E• Ð(1997).€The€revocation€of€probation€lies€within€the€soundò òòòóóó ó€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.Ð .~ ÐHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€79,€82€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Stubblefieldóó,€953€S.W.2d€223,€226€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð g ÐApp.€1997)òòóó;€òòState€v.€Mitchellóó,€810€S.W.2d€733,€735€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€To€show€an€abuseÐ  P Ðof€discretion€in€a€probation€revocation€case,€ð ða€defendant€must€demonstrate€ððthat€the€record€containsÐ é 9 Ðno€substantial€evidence€to€support€the€conclusion€of€the€trial€judge€that€a€violation€of€the€conditionsÐ Ò!"  Ðof€probation€has€occurred.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Wallóó,€909€S.W.2d€8,€10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(quotingÐ »" ! ÐòòState€v.€€Delpóó,€614€S.W.2d€395,€398€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)).€€The€proof€of€a€probation€violationÐ ¤#ô" Ðneed€not€be€established€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€but€it€is€sufficient€if€it€allows€the€trial€court€toÐ $Ý# Ðmake€a€conscientious€and€intelligent€judgment.€€òòHarkinsóó,€811€S.W.2d€at€82€(citing€òòState€v.€Miltonóó,Ð v%Æ $ Ð673€S.W.2d€555,€557€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)).€€We€review€this€issue,€therefore,€for€an€abuse€ofÐ _&¯!% Ðdiscretion.Ð H'˜"& ÐÓ °ÓÓ °ÓÌÓ °;ÓÓ °÷:Óò òÓ  ÓÐ  )j$( ÐB.€€€€€à0 @ àVictimððs€Preliminary€Hearing€Testimonyó óÐ ° ÐÓ;;ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€revoking€his€probation€because€the€evidenceÐ ƒÓ Ðwas€insufficient€to€establish€that€he€violated€its€terms.€€Specifically,€he€argues€that€Whiteððs€testimonyÐ l¼ Ðdid€not€establish€that€he€had€violated€his€probation€and€actually€supported€a€finding€that€he€was€notÐ U¥ Ðguilty€of€the€offenses.€€Alternatively,€the€defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€consideredÐ > Ž ÐWhiteððs€preliminary€hearing€testimony€because€she€was€not€unavailable€as€a€witness.Ð ' w ÐÌà  àWe€agree€that€Whiteððs€testimony€from€the€preliminary€hearing€was€hearsay.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð ù I ÐEvid.€801(c).€€However,€Rule€804(b)(1)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€allows€hearsay€evidenceÐ â 2  Ðto€be€admitted€if€the€declarant€is€unavailable:Ð Ë   ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFormer€Testimony€ð!ð€Testimony€given€as€a€witness€at€another€hearingÐ í  Ðof€the€same€or€a€different€proceeding€or€in€a€deposition€taken€inÐ †Ö  Ðcompliance€with€law€in€the€course€of€the€same€or€another€proceeding,Ð o¿  Ðif€the€party€against€whom€the€testimony€is€now€offered€had€both€anÐ X¨  Ðopportunity€and€a€similar€motive€to€develop€the€testimony€by€direct,Ð A‘ Ðcross,€or€redirect€examination.Ð*z` x` x ÐÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b)(1).€€Ð üL ÐÌà  àNeil€P.€Cohen€et€al.,€òòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€8.32[5]€(4th€ed.€2000),€explains€that€lackÐ Î Ðof€memory€as€to€the€subject€matter€of€the€statement€in€question€may€result€in€a€declarantððs€beingÐ · Ðð ðunavailableðð:Ð  ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àRule€804(a)(3)€provides€that€a€declarant€is€unavailable€to€testifyÐ r Ðif€he€or€she€demonstrates€a€lack€of€memory€of€the€subject€matter€ofÐ [« Ðthe€declarantððs€own€statement.€€The€unusual€requirement€that€theÐ D” Ðwitness€ð ðdemonstrateðð€a€lack€of€memory€means€that€the€witnessÐ -} Ðshould€be€called€to€the€stand€and€questioned€about€the€subject€matterÐ f Ðcovered€by€the€witnessððs€own€hearsay€statement.€€The€court€couldÐ ÿO Ðeven€require€efforts€to€refresh€the€witnessððs€recollection.Ðè 8` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà Œ àAs€with€the€previous€unavailability€rule,€the€lack€of€memory€isÐ º" ! Ðabout€the€ð ðsubject€matter€of€the€declarantððs€statement.ðð€€This€meansÐ £#ó" Ðthat€the€witness€may€remember€and€testify€about€some€issues,€but€beÐ Œ$Ü# Ðunable€to€remember€others.€€He€or€she€is€deemed€unavailable€forÐ u%Å $ Ðpurposes€of€admitting€Rule€804(b)€hearsay€statements€about€mattersÐ ^&®!% Ðin€the€latter€category.€€Routinely,€the€witnessððs€own€testimony€willÐ G'—"& Ðprovide€the€foundation€for€the€lack€of€memory.€€If€the€court€does€notÐ 0(€#' Ðbelieve€that€the€witness€really€does€lack€memory,€the€best€approachÐ )i$( Ðmay€be€for€the€court€to€order€the€witness€to€testify.€€If€the€witness€stillÐ *R%) Ðâ âfeigns€lack€of€memory,€the€witness€would€be€unavailable€under€RuleÐ ë*;&* Ð804(a)(2)€for€persisting€to€refuse€to€testify€despite€a€court€order€to€doÐ ° Ðso.Йé` x` x Ðâ âÌà  àFormer€testimony€admitted€under€Rule€804(b)(1)€is€substantive€evidence.€€òòState€v.€StaceyÐ k» ÐPhilander€Baldonóó,€No.€W2000„00524„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€128586,€at€*5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.Ð T¤ Ð12,€2001),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€June€4,€2001).Ð =  ÐÌà  àAt€the€revocation€hearing,€the€victim€testified€several€times,€ð ðI€donððt€knowðð€and€ð ðI€canððtÐ  _ Ðremember€what€happened,ðð€and€also€stated€numerous€times,€ð ð[The€defendant]€didnððt€do€it.ðð€€BasedÐ ø H Ðon€this€testimony,€the€trial€court€determined€that€she€was€ð ðunavailableðð€to€testify,€stating€later,€ð ðSheÐ á 1  Ðwas€very€emotional€and€upset€and€distraught.€€And€.€.€.€I€could€sense€that€she€was€under€extremeÐ Ê   Ðstress€and€pressure€and€emotions€at€the€time€of€the€hearing.€.€.€.€€[S]he€was,€in€her€emotional€state[,]Ð ³  Ðunavailable€to€testify€at€that€time€Friday€morning€[the€first€day€of€the€hearing].ðð€€Because€of€theseÐ œì  Ðresponses,€we€conclude€that€the€record€supports€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€witness€wasÐ …Õ  Ðð ðunavailableðð€for€purposes€of€the€revocation€hearing.Ð n¾  ÐÌà  àAs€to€the€reliability€of€Whiteððs€former€testimony,€the€preliminary€hearing€transcriptÐ @ Ðdemonstrates€that€she€was€thoroughly€cross„examined,€and€the€defendant€did€not€argue€to€theÐ )y Ðcontrary€at€the€probation€revocation€hearing.€€The€fact€that€White€was€cross„examined€at€theÐ b Ðpreliminary€hearing,€as€well€as€the€greater€flexibility€necessitated€at€revocation€hearings,€convincesÐ ûK Ðus€that€the€defendantððs€right€to€due€process€was€not€violated€by€the€use€of€Whiteððs€previousÐ ä4 Ðtestimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòBlack€v.€Romanoóó,€471€U.S.€606,€613,€105€S.€Ct.€2254,€2258,€85€L.€Ed.€2d€636Ð Í Ð(1985).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€Whiteððs€testimony€at€the€preliminary€hearing€was€sufficient€to€establishÐ ˆØ Ðthat€the€defendant€committed€aggravated€assault€against€White,€who€said€that€the€defendant€held€aÐ qÁ Ðkitchen€knife€with€a€four„inch€blade€to€her€throat.€€This€testimony€established€by€a€preponderanceÐ Zª Ðof€the€evidence€that€the€defendant€committed€aggravated€assault€and€thus€violated€his€probation.€Ð C“ ÐAlthough€we€are€unable€to€determine,€due€to€the€limited€record,€whether€there€was€sufficientÐ ,| Ðevidence€to€establish€whether€the€defendant€committed€three€counts€of€child€neglect€by€aÐ e Ðpreponderance€of€the€evidence,€the€aggravated€assault€charge€was€a€sufficient€basis€for€revoking€theÐ þN Ðdefendantððs€probation€even€if€the€child€neglect€charges€were€dismissed.€€As€such,€we€cannot€find€thatÐ ç 7 Ðthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€revoking€the€defendantððs€probation.Ð Ð!   ÐÌò òÓ  ÓÌÐ Œ$Ü# ÐB.€€Victimððs€Written€Statement€in€Support€of€Petition€for€Order€of€Protection€ó óÐ ° ÐÓCVÓÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€considering€Whiteððs€writtenÐ ƒÓ Ðstatement€in€support€of€her€petition€for€an€order€of€protection,€saying€that€its€use€violated€his€rightÐ l¼ Ðto€due€process€because€he€was€not€notified€that€this€statement€would€be€used€against€him€and€thisÐ U¥ Ðevidence€was€outside€the€record.Ð > Ž ÐÌà  àWe€addressed€a€similar€claim€in€òòStamps€v.€Stateóó,€614€S.W.2d€71,€73€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð  ` Ð1980),€whereinòòóó€the€defendantððs€probation€was€revoked€because€she€was€arrested€for€larceny€andÐ ù I Ðcontinued€to€live€with€a€married€man€despite€a€court€order€to€refrain€from€such€conduct.€€òòóóThe€trialÐ â 2  Ðcourt€ð ðfound€outðð€that€the€defendant€was€still€living€with€the€same€married€man€and€revoked€herÐ Ë   Ðprobation.€€òòId.óó€€As€in€the€present€case,€Stamps€argued€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€conducting€aÐ ´  Ðseparate€investigation€and€relying€on€evidence€outside€of€the€hearing.€€òòId.óó€at€74.€€This€court€agreed,Ð í  Ðconcluding€that€a€probation€revocation€could€not€be€based€upon€evidence€which€the€probationer€hadÐ †Ö  Ðnot€heard€or€had€the€opportunity€to€test€by€cross„examination€or€presentation€of€contrary€evidence.Ð o¿  ÐòòóóThe€error€in€òòStampsóó€òòóówas€harmless,€however,€because€the€evidence€from€the€courtððs€independentÐ X¨  Ðinvestigation€was€not€the€only€evidence€upon€which€the€trial€court€based€its€decision€to€revoke€theÐ A‘ Ðdefendantððs€probation.€€òòId.óó€€In€the€present€matter,€we€conclude,€likewise,€that€it€was€error€to€considerÐ *z Ðas€evidence€in€the€revocation€proceeding€the€written€statement€of€White€prepared€to€obtain€an€orderÐ c Ðof€protection.€€However,€in€this€case,€as€in€òòStampsóó,€additional€evidence€exists€which€supports€theÐ üL Ðrevocation.€€Accordingly,€the€error€in€considering€the€evidence€was€harmless.Ð å5 ÐÌà  àIn€summary,€we€conclude€that€Whiteððs€preliminary€hearing€testimony€was€properlyÐ · Ðconsidered€and€utilized€as€substantive€evidence€by€the€court€because€she€was€ð ðunavailableðð€for€theÐ  ð Ðrevocation€hearing€as€the€result€of€her€lack€of€memory.€€With€this€evidence,€the€record€supports€theÐ ‰Ù Ðcourtððs€determination€that,€by€a€preponderance,€the€State€established€that€the€defendant€had€assaultedÐ r ÐWhite€and,€thus,€violated€the€conditions€of€his€probation.€€While€we€agree€that€Whiteððs€statementÐ [« Ðsubmitted€with€the€order€of€protection€was€not€appropriately€considered€in€the€revocationÐ D” Ðproceeding,€other€evidence€adequately€supported€the€courtððs€revocation€order.Ð -} Ðò òòòÓ  ÓÌCONCLUSIONóóó óÐ  P ÐÓqbÓÌà  àBased€on€the€foregoing€reasoning€and€authorities,€we€affirm€the€order€of€the€trial€court.Ð Ó!#  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð Ž$Þ# Ðà  àà ` àà Œ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGEÐ w%Ç $ Ð