IN RE ARIEL R.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) IN RE ARIEL R. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) __________________________________) DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/27/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls 1 CA-JV 12-0070 DEPARTMENT D MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication 103(G), Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct.; Rule 28, ARCAP) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. JV182433 The Honorable Larry Grant, Judge AFFIRMED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney by Diane Meloche, Appeals Bureau Chief/ Deputy County Attorney and Lisa Marie Martin, Deputy County Attorney Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Christina Phillis, Maricopa County Public Advocate by Devra N. Ellexson, Deputy Public Advocate Attorneys for Appellant Mesa P O R T L E Y, Judge ¶1 The juvenile appeals violated her probation. the determination that she She argues that the court erred by relying on unreliable hearsay and, as a result, the State failed to prove that she violated her probation. Because we disagree, we affirm her adjudication. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 to The juvenile was placed on probation after admitting three counts misdemeanors. of criminal damage and simple assault, all Some seven months later, she was continued on probation after admitting to another simple assault. Less than two months later, a petition to revoke her probation was filed. After the probation violation hearing, 1 the court found that she had violated probation by failing to meet with her probation officer as required, and reinstated the seventeen year old on probation. DISCUSSION ¶3 The juvenile challenges the admission of the testimony of the juvenile s probation officer. We review the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Roscoe, 184 Ariz. 484, 491, 910 P.2d 635, 642 (1996); In re Jonah T., 196 Ariz. 204, 208, ¶ 15, 994 P.2d 1019, 1023 (App. 1999) (citing the 1 At the outset of the hearing, the State dismissed the count that alleged that the juvenile had run away. 2 predecessor to Ariz. R.P. Juvenile Court 32(E)(3) that the court can admit any reliable And, we review evidence whether there which was may include sufficient hearsay). evidence to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile violated probation. Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cnty. Juvenile Action No. J-82718-S, 116 Ariz. 232, 233, 568 P.2d 1130, 1131 (App. 1977); Ariz. R.P. Juv. Ct. ( Rule ) 32(E)(2). ¶4 Despite the fact that her signature appears below the statement avowing that I have read and understand the Conditions of Probation, and have had them explained to me, the juvenile argues that the testimony of the probation officer was unreliable hearsay. ¶5 We disagree. After the probation officer identified the juvenile in open court, she testified that another officer, the OD, 2 had reviewed the terms of probation with the juvenile after her disposition. The probation officer also testified that she made a specific appointment with the juvenile, but the youngster did not appear as agreed and never contacted her. ¶6 The juvenile unsuccessfully argued that a directed verdict was appropriate because there was no evidence that she signed the terms of probation or that anyone reviewed them with her. The court, however, found that the document containing the 2 Although the initials OD were not defined, there is no indication that the juvenile court judge, as the trier of fact, did not understand what the initials represented. 3 terms of probation was a business record. The court then determined that the evidence demonstrated that: (1) the juvenile had been placed on probation on October 25, 2011; (2) Term 12 was one of her probation terms; (3) there was evidence that in the usual course of business the terms are reviewed by another probation officer immediately after the disposition; and (4) despite agreeing to the arrangement to meet with her probation officer, she never showed up. the juvenile violated As a result, the court found that probation Term 12 to meet with her probation officer as directed. ¶7 We find no abuse of discretion. record demonstrates that the First, because the juvenile court judge had adjudicated the juvenile delinquent and placed her on probation prior to the probation revocation filing, he was familiar with the juvenile and her history. The court essentially took judicial notice of the information contained within the legal and/or social files that are maintained pursuant to Rule 19. ¶8 Second, although the probation officer did not know the other probation officer who read the terms of probation to the juvenile admitted as after a her business prior disposition, record. Ariz. the R. document Evid. was 803(6); Bohsancurt v. Eisenberg, 212 Ariz. 182, 187-88, ¶ 21, 129 P.3d 471, 476-77 (App. 2006) (stating that when in the ordinary course of business a public record is maintained by a public 4 agency it can still be a public record). Consequently, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by relying on the business records exception to review the terms of probation. ¶9 Although the juvenile argues that State v. Portis, 187 Ariz. 336, 929 P.2d 687 (App. 1996) supports her argument that the probation officer s testimony find the case inapposite. was unreliable hearsay, we There, the issue was whether there was a viable chain of custody between the urine sample that had been collected from the probationer and the positive result for cocaine. Id. at 338-39, 929 P.2d at 689-90. The State initially was unable to prove a causal connection between the defendant, the urine sample and the results. P.2d at 689. Id. at 338, 929 After the court granted the State a continuance to attempt to correct the defect, it could only demonstrate that it telephonically discovered that an unknown assistant, who was a recovering addict, stated that the positive sample came from the defendant, even though the unknown assistant might have been terminated for a positive sample. Id. Accordingly, we found that the circumstances of the information did not demonstrate that the hearsay was reliable. ¶10 Here, the Id. at 339, 929 P.2d at 690. circumstances court judge suggested reliability. presented to the juvenile Despite the fact that the testifying probation officer did not know the Durango facility probation officer who reviewed the terms of probation with the 5 juvenile, 3 the unidentified probation officer signed the terms of probation. His signature, coupled with the terms of probation and the testimony about the practice of the juvenile probation department after a juvenile is placed on probation, demonstrated that the probation officer s testimony that the probation terms had been reviewed with the juvenile warrant[ed] trust that it was reliable hearsay. Id. abuse by its discretion Consequently, the court did not finding the probation officer s testimony reliable hearsay pursuant to Rule 32(E)(2). ¶11 Similarly, because the court was entitled to rely on the testimony of the probation officer, it could also rely on the signed terms of probation. As a result, the court found that the juvenile had violated her written probation terms by failing to meet with the testifying probation officer at the time and place the juvenile had agreed to meet. the court did not abuse its discretion by Consequently, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile violated her probation. 3 The unidentified probation officer also reviewed the terms of probation with the juvenile when she was first placed on probation on April 22, 2011. 6 CONCLUSION ¶12 that Based on the foregoing, we affirm the determination the juvenile violated her probation and the resultant disposition. /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ ANDREW W. GOULD, Judge /s/ ________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Judge 7

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.