The state presented evidence that (1) knowing he would test positive for marijuana and cocaine, defendant left the probation office without providing a requested sample; (2) thereafter, defendant’s probation officer twice visited d
The state presented evidence that (1) knowing he would test positive for marijuana and cocaine, defendant left the probation office without providing a requested sample; (2) thereafter, defendant’s probation officer twice visited defendant’s last known address but could not locate him; and (3) despite messages left with his family members, defendant failed to return to the probation office. For a 22-day period, defendant failed to contact or make his whereabouts know to his probation officer, thereby absconding.
We affirm the revocation of defendant’s probation; however, we remand for the correction of clerical errors.
Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that his confrontation right was violated when a different probation officer, who was not involved in defendant’s case, testified at defendant’s probation revocation hearing. Defense counsel objected: “I mean, he’s going to read from a file, Judge, from somebody. He’s not even involved in the case, doesn’t know any details about the matter, Judge, and I would object.” The trial court overruled the objection.
Defendant did not state that the legal basis for his objection was his statutory confrontation right, nor was that ground apparent from context. Defendant did not request to cross examine his own probation officer (Phillips), did not request Phillips’ presence at the hearing, and did not ask that Phillips be subpoenaed and required to testify. At most, it could be inferred that defendant objected to witness Locus testifying because Locus did not have personal knowledge of the underlying events, and because Locus’s reading from Phillips’ case notes constituted inadmissible hearsay.
Defendant’s objection was insufficient to trigger the trial court’s obligation under G.S. § 15A-1345(e) to either permit cross-examination of Phillips or find good cause for disallowing confrontation. Under these circumstances, defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of his right to confrontation under § 15A-1345(e).
State v. Thorne (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-204-21, 12 pp.) (Allegra Collins, J.) Appealed from Nash County Superior Court (Quentin Sumner, J.) Kyle Peterson for the state; Gilda Rodriguez for defendant. 2021-NCCOA-534