Rel: August 21, 2026
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026
CR-2026-0212
James D. Hatfield
v.
State of Alabama
Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court
(CC-23-567.70)
KELLUM, Judge.
The appellant, James D. Hatfield, appeals from the Elmore Circuit
Court's revocation of his probation.
The limited record before us indicates that Hatfield was on
unsupervised probation when he was arrested on new criminal charges
CR-2026-0212
of felony leaving the scene of an accident and assault in the first degree
on February 10, 2026. Following Hatfield's arrest, the State moved to
revoke Hatfield's probation based on the new criminal charges.
On February 26, 2026, the circuit court conducted a probationrevocation hearing at which Hatfield was present and represented by
counsel. At the hearing, the State presented the testimony of one
witness, Senior Trooper Thomas Nash with the Alabama Law
Enforcement Agency. Trooper Nash was not working on the day of the
traffic accident but later took over the investigation at the request of his
supervisor. In describing the accident, Trooper Nash testified that a
"black Chevy Silverado [pickup truck] crossed over the center line into
the opposite lane and hit head on with a Hyundai Elantra." (R. 6.)
According to Trooper Nash, the truck was registered to Hatfield, but
Trooper Nash testified that he was not at the scene of the accident and
did not know if the registration information was known at the time of the
accident. Trooper Nash testified that, "as far as [he was] aware," the
female driver of the Hyundai Elantra suffered "severe bodily injuries,"
including two broken femurs, broken ribs, a broken pelvis, and a
2
CR-2026-0212
collapsed lung. (R. 6.) The victim remained in the hospital for a couple
of months before she was transferred to a rehabilitation facility.
Trooper Nash testified that, two days after the accident, Hatfield
went to the Elmore County Sheriff's Office. Trooper Nash was not
present when Hatfield went to the sheriff's office, but he learned from a
witness who was present that day that Hatfield had inquired about the
location of his truck and had asked if there were any warrants out for his
arrest. Hatfield "had several scratches and bruises" and "looked like he
had been injured." (R. 9.) Trooper Nash testified that there was a witness
at the scene of the accident who "told the on scene trooper that he
observed a male, doesn't know what race, but a male [got] out of the
vehicle, grab[bed] something out of the truck, out of the tool box, and then
took off [into the woods]." (R. 9.)
After the accident, law-enforcement officers secured a search
warrant for the truck and a "Berla download," which, according to
Trooper Nash, "is the info center where you plug your car in the like
Apple car play, Android auto, things like that where we can download
information where like contacts, what phone was connected to the truck.
It gives you kind of time stamps." (R. 10.) Trooper Nash testified that a
3
CR-2026-0212
lieutenant with the State Bureau of Investigations ("the SBI") performed
the Berla download. While conducting a search of the truck, Trooper
Nash observed a bottle of vodka and a firearm inside the truck. The
airbags had been deployed, but law-enforcement officers were unable to
locate any blood on the airbags.
Trooper Nash testified that, "according to the SBI lieutenant" who
had extracted the data from the Berla download,
"an Apple iPhone with a specific serial number was connected
to the truck at approximately 2:50. But it's universal standard
time, so you have to convert it. When you convert that time,
it marks it as 8:57 p.m. The crash happened at approximately
-- it's always approximate. They have it down on the crash
report at 8:55."
(R. 11.) Further, Trooper Nash testified:
"It says in here, the contact record with the serial number
shows the name of Dillon Hatfield with a registered number
of, and it gives the phone number, and e-mail address. The
number is registered to James Hatfield, who is James Dillon
Hatfield, the registered owner of the vehicle."
(R. 12.) Based on the SBI lieutenant's report, Trooper Nash testified that
Hatfield's cellular telephone was connected to the truck "two minutes,
give or take, around the crash." (R. 12.)
Thereafter, Trooper Nash continued his investigation and "spoke[]
to several witnesses who [came] forward and [gave him] sworn
4
CR-2026-0212
statements and also recorded statements." (R. 12.) According to Trooper
Nash, "[o]ne witness advised that [Hatfield] had -- when asked why -- you
know, why have we not picked [Hatfield] up yet because he almost killed
the girl on that wreck the other day." (R. 12.) Trooper Nash testified
that that witness spoke to another law-enforcement officer who then
contacted Trooper Nash. Trooper Nash testified that he had not spoken
to anyone who had direct contact with Hatfield.
Trooper Nash secured a warrant for Hatfield's arrest and a search
warrant for Hatfield's cellular telephone. Trooper Nash testified that the
cellular telephone had been turned over to the SBI but, at the time of the
revocation hearing, the SBI had not been able to gain access to the
cellular telephone and that no connection had been established between
Hatfield's cellular telephone and the one that was connected to the Berla
system in the truck at the time of the accident.
On cross-examination, Trooper Nash testified that he did not see
the accident, was not present at the scene following the accident, and he
admitted that his testimony was "based off of what other people [had]
told [him]." (R. 15.) Specifically, Trooper Nash based his testimony on
an accident report produced by another trooper who had responded to the
5
CR-2026-0212
accident scene, a signed written statement by a witness, and an
investigation of the Berla system an SBI lieutenant conducted. Trooper
Nash testified that he had driven by the scene of the accident and that
the accident site was approximately 1.7 to 1.8 miles from Hatfield's
house.
At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, defense counsel argued
that the evidence presented in support of the revocation of Hatfield's
probation was solely hearsay. The circuit court disagreed, and, on March
3, 2026, the circuit court entered an order revoking Hatfield's probation.
This appeal followed.
Hatfield's sole contention on appeal is that the circuit court erred
when it revoked his probation based solely on hearsay evidence. The
State concedes that the circuit court relied on hearsay evidence alone to
revoke Hatfield's probation. We agree.
"It is well settled that hearsay evidence may not form
the sole basis for revoking an individual's probation. See
Clayton v. State, 669 So. 2d 220, 222 (Ala. Cr. App. 1995);
Chasteen v. State, 652 So. 2d 319, 320 (Ala. Cr. App. 1994);
and Mallette v. State, 572 So. 2d 1316, 1317 (Ala. Cr. App.
1990). 'The use of hearsay as the sole means of proving a
violation of a condition of probation denies a probationer the
right to confront and to cross-examine the persons originating
the information that forms the basis of the revocation.'
Clayton, 669 So. 2d at 222."
6
CR-2026-0212
Goodgain v. State, 755 So. 2d 591, 592 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999).
However, "hearsay evidence is admissible in a revocation
proceeding," Beckham v. State, 872 So. 2d 208, 211 (Ala. Crim. App.
2003), and a combination of both hearsay and nonhearsay evidence may
be sufficient to warrant revocation. See, e.g., Askew v. State, 197 So. 3d
547, 548-49 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015). "[W]hen the State presents a mixture
of hearsay and nonhearsay evidence to show that a defendant violated
his probation by committing a new offense, the circuit court cannot
revoke a defendant's probation for that violation unless the nonhearsay
evidence connects the defendant to the alleged offense." Walker v. State,
294 So. 3d 825, 832 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019).
In this case, the State presented only hearsay evidence to support
a finding that Hatfield had violated the terms and conditions of his
probation by committing two new criminal offenses. At the revocation
hearing, the State presented the testimony of one witness, Trooper Nash,
who had no firsthand, personal knowledge of Hatfield's alleged
violations. Indeed, Trooper Nash stated at the revocation hearing that
his testimony was "based off of what other people [had] told [him]." (R.
15.) Specifically, Trooper Nash based his testimony on an accident report
7
CR-2026-0212
prepared by another law-enforcement officer, statements given by
witnesses to other law-enforcement officers during the investigation, and
data an SBI officer collected from a Berla download. Trooper Nash was
not present at the scene of the crash and did not speak directly to any
witnesses. The State's nonhearsay evidence -- Trooper Nash's testimony
regarding the victim's injuries, the contents of Hatfield's truck, and the
distance between Hatfield's house and the accident scene -- merely
connected Hatfield to the scene of the crime but did not connect Hatfield
to the crime itself. That evidence was insufficient to sustain the circuit
court's revocation of Hatfield's probation. See Washington v. State, 369
So. 3d 686, 690 (Ala. Crim. App. 2022) (nonhearsay evidence from officer
regarding surveillance footage and the contents of Washington's
statement to officer connected Washington to scene of the robbery but
was insufficient to connect him to the robbery itself); see also Wright v.
State, 292 So. 3d 1136, 1139 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019) (nonhearsay evidence
indicating Wright was merely present at a party at the time a shooting
occurred did not sufficiently connect him to alleged murder).
Because the State did not present sufficient nonhearsay evidence
indicating that Hatfield had committed new criminal offenses, the circuit
8
CR-2026-0212
court erred in revoking Hatfield's probation. Accordingly, we reverse the
circuit court's order revoking Hatfield's probation and remand this case
to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Windom, P.J., and Cole, Minor, and Anderson, JJ., concur.
9