This Court previously reversed a murder conviction of Charles Lawrence, Sr. Lawrence v. State, 257 Ga. 423 360 SE2d 716 1987. On remand, Lawrence pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and the trial court imposed a 20-year sentence. The Board of Pardons and Paroles Board granted parole in 1988. Subsequently, revocation proceedings were instituted and the Board held a hearing in 1996. In order to establish that Lawrence committed aggravated assault, his parole officer recounted conversations with Lawrence’s wife and daughter and a police officer. The Board revoked Lawrence’s parole based upon its findings that he committed aggravated assault against his wife and daughter, absconded from parole supervision, and failed to pay his victim’s compensation fee. Lawrence then petitioned for habeas corpus on several grounds. The habeas court granted the writ and vacated the revocation of parole only on the ground that the use of the parole officer’s hearsay testimony at the parole revocation hearing violated Lawrence’s right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. The Warden appeals pursuant to OCGA § 9-14-52 c.
The habeas court was authorized to grant relief only if the admission of hearsay at Lawrence’s parole revocation was a substantial denial of his constitutional rights. Johnson v. Griffin, 271 Ga. 663 522 SE2d 657 1999. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 62 II A 100 SC 2531, 65 LE2d 597 1980. Although that constitutional provision and the hearsay rule protect “similar values,” they do not overlap completely. California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 155II 90 SC 1930, 26 LE2d 489 1970. “The hearsay-evidence rule, with its subtleties, anomalies and ramifications, will not be read into the Fourteenth Amendment. Cit.” Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156, 196 VI 73 SC 1077, 97 LE2d 1522 1953, overruled on other grounds, Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 390 III 84 SC 1774, 12 LE2d 908 1964. “Merely because evidence is admitted in violation of a long-established hearsay rule does not lead to the automatic conclusion that confrontation rights have been denied.” California v. Green, supra at 156 II.
