In a hearing on revocation of the defendant’s suspended sentence, the trial court did not err in admitting an out-of-court verbal statement to the defendant’s probation officer.
The defendant’s probation conditions included having no visitors in his state-provided motel room after 11 p.m. However, at his first probation meeting, the defendant was accompanied by a woman who ultimately told the officer that she was living with the defendant. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the probation officer elicited this statement not in the course of investigating whether the defendant violated his probation, but rather in order to give her and the defendant directions to the local police department. Thus, the verbal statement was non-testimonial and did not implicate the Confrontation Clause when the companion was not present as a witness.
Affirmed. Judge Russell concurred in part and dissented in part.