Hearsay evidence may be admitted in a revocation proceeding; it just cannot form the sole basis for revocation. Ex parte Belcher, 556 So. 2d 366, 369 (Ala. 1989); Boyd v. State, 808 So. 2d 70, 71 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). Because there was nonhearsay testimony presented on which the Board could have based its decision to revoke Johnson's parole, Johnson is not entitled to any relief on this claim.
(“The underlying rationale behind this exception is that business records have the ‘earmark of reliability’ or ‘probability of trustworthiness,’ because they reflect the day-to-day operations of the enterprise and are relied upon in the conduct of business. Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943).”); and Boyd v. State, 808 So.2d 70, 71 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (parole officer testified that delinquency reports were kept in the ordinary course of business). See also Dowdell v. State, 790 So.2d 359 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (record that showed the victim's debit card transactions was admissible although the supervisor who printed the computer-generated record did not testify where assistant who testified had personal knowledge of the victim's transaction history and knew of documents' use and maintenance in the normal course of business).
See James v. State, 723 So. 2d 776, 779 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) ("The underlying rationale behind this exception is that business records have the 'earmark of reliability' or 'probability of trustworthiness,' because they reflect the day-to-day operations of the enterprise and are relied upon in the conduct of business. Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 63 S.Ct. 477, 87 L.Ed. 645 (1943)."); and Boyd v. State, 808 So. 2d 70, 71 (Ala.Crim. App. 2001) (parole officer testified that delinquency reports were kept in the ordinary course of business). See also Dowdell v. State, 790 So. 2d 359 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) (record that showed the victim's debit card transactions was admissible although the supervisor who printed the computer-generated record did not testify where assistant who testified had personal knowledge of the victim's transaction history and knew of documents' use and maintenance in the normal course of business).
Here, the only evidence indicating that Nash had violated his probation by committing other crimes was hearsay testimony of Carter and Stillman. See Ex parte J.J.D., Jr., 778 So.2d 240, 242 n. 2 (Ala. 2000) ("[T]he only evidence presented by the State in support of the allegation that J.J.D. had received stolen property was hearsay testimony about the contents of the offense report related to that charge."); see also Richardson v. State, 863 So.2d 122, 124-25 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Boyd v. State, 808 So.2d 70, 71 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001). Neither witness had any independent knowledge of the assertions contained in the police reports detailing the circumstances surrounding the three charged offenses.