## Facts

- James Allen Thomas, a juvenile, had been adjudicated delinquent for theft and placed on probation.
- A probation condition required Thomas to reside at Lawrence Hall, a supervised institution for boys.
- While on probation, Thomas left Lawrence Hall without permission on multiple occasions.
- At the revocation hearing, the State called Lawrence Hall program director Charles Sanders, who had personal knowledge of the absences but could not recall the specific dates while testifying.
- The prosecutor showed Sanders a Lawrence Hall document listing the dates of the unauthorized departures; Sanders stated it refreshed his memory and then testified to the dates from his recollection.
- The trial court found Thomas violated probation and revoked probation, ordering a juvenile commitment.

## Issues

1. Whether the court erred by allowing a witness to consult a written document to refresh present recollection of dates and then testify to those dates over hearsay objections.
2. Whether the properly admitted evidence was sufficient to support revocation of probation.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the probation revocation order.
- It held the trial court properly permitted Sanders to refresh his present recollection by reviewing the document and then testify from memory.
- The court rejected the argument that this procedure improperly introduced hearsay through the witness.
- The evidence supported the finding that Thomas violated the residency condition of probation.

## Legal Principles

- A witness with incomplete memory may consult a writing to refresh present recollection and then testify from independently refreshed memory.
- When a writing is used only to refresh present recollection, the writing itself is not substantive evidence and does not, by that use alone, violate the hearsay rule.
- The critical evidentiary distinction is between present recollection refreshed (testimony from memory after review) and past recollection recorded (a different doctrine requiring separate foundation when the witness still lacks present memory).
- Probation revocation may be based on proof that probation conditions were violated, and the trial court has discretion in making that determination.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the juvenile probation revocation because the State’s witness permissibly refreshed his present recollection with a written list of dates and then testified from memory, providing competent evidence that the minor repeatedly left the required residence without permission.


In re Thomas, 65 Ill. App. 3d 136, 382 N.E.2d 556 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1978)