Michael Sparling, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Michael Sparling appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation, arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the determination a violation occurred. We reverse.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2025, Sparling pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced Sparling to 730 days, all suspended to supervised probation. As specific conditions of probation, the trial court ordered Sparling to attend and complete the Howard County Drug and Alcohol Program and follow any of the probation department's treatment and education recommendations. As part of the standard conditions of probation, the trial court ordered Sparling to submit to drug testing; not consume or possess illegal or controlled substances; and not commit any criminal offenses.

[3] On February 18, 2026, the State filed a petition to revoke probation, alleging Sparling violated the terms of his probation by committing a new offense and testing positive for THC use. In support of the petition, the State attached documentation showing Sparling (1) had been arrested and charged with two offenses under cause number 34D01-2602-F6-372 (“Cause 372”), and (2) tested positive for cannabinoids on a drug screen administered on February 11.¹

[4] The trial court held a factfinding hearing on March 16, 2026. On direct examination, probation officer Kelsey Moss testified Sparling had been arrested and charged with domestic battery under Cause 372. She provided no details about the circumstances. Moss also testified Sparling submitted to a urinalysis screening on February 11 which was “positive for THC.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 18.

[5] On cross examination, Moss verified she had no firsthand knowledge of the facts giving rise to the arrest and charges in Cause 372. As to the drug screen results, defense counsel questioned Moss as follows:

Q When was that screen given?

A Uh the screen was given on February 11th.

Q And it was presumptive positive?

A Correct.

Q Was it sent off for confirmation?

A No.

Q So we don't know if it's actually positive or not?

A Not at this time.

Q Do you have any idea what the veracity or accuracy of a presumptive (INAUDIBLE) versus a certified confirmation?

A I don't.

Id. at 19. The State presented no other testimony or documentary evidence.

[6] The trial court found Sparling violated the conditions of his probation as alleged, revoked his probation, and ordered him to serve 600 days of his previously suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Insufficient evidence supports the trial court's determination a violation occurred.

[7] Sparling argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination he violated his probation.

[8] Probation is a matter of grace, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). “In appeals from trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of discretion.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the trial court misinterprets the law.” Id. (internal citation omitted).

[9] A probation hearing is civil in nature, and the State must prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999); Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f) (2015). In probation hearings, judges may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability. Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551. When the sufficiency of the evidence to support probation revocation is at issue on appeal, we consider the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014). If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's decision that the defendant violated any terms of probation, we will affirm the court's decision to revoke it. Id.

[10] Sparling first argues the State failed to prove he violated his probation by committing a new criminal offense when he was arrested and charged in Cause 372. The mere fact of an arrest or the filing of a criminal charge does not warrant the revocation of probation. Jackson v. State, 6 N.E.3d 1040, 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Instead, when the State alleges the defendant violated probation by committing a crime, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the defendant committed the offense. Id. At most, Moss’ testimony established Sparling had been arrested and charged with two crimes. But the State offered no further evidence about the facts and circumstances of the alleged offenses. Accordingly, the State failed to show Sparling violated his probation, as alleged, by committing the offenses charged in Cause 372.²

[11] Sparling next argues the State failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, he violated probation by testing positive for THC on February 11. To make its case, the State relied solely on Moss’ testimony that Sparling's urinalysis screen indicated a positive result for THC. Yet on cross-examination, Moss clarified the test result was a “presumptive positive” and the sample was not sent for confirmation testing. Tr. Vol. 2 at 19. She therefore did not know if the screen was “actually positive[.]” Id. The State presented no other evidence concerning the drug screen, such as the urinalysis test results or affidavit of a laboratory scientist. See, e.g., Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 442 (Ind. 2007) (holding “substantially trustworthy” affidavit of lab scientist opining defendant used cocaine in a specific time frame, coupled with urinalysis test results and other related documents, were sufficient to establish probation violation). Accordingly, there was no substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's determination that Sparling violated the terms of his probation by consuming or possessing illegal or controlled substances.

[12] Nevertheless, the State argues presumptive drug testing “is sufficient evidence in criminal trials, where the burden of proof is greater, so it stands to reason that it suffices in a probation revocation hearing where the State's burden is only to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Appellee's Br. at 8. In support, the State directs our attention to Sciaraffa v. State, 28 N.E.3d 351 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied, and Veach v. State, 204 N.E.3d 331 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. But neither case suggests the evidence presented here is sufficient to sustain the trial court's determination.

[13] In Sciaraffa, a panel of this Court held the presumptively positive test results for methamphetamine found in a glass bottle were admissible in a criminal trial. 28 N.E.3d at 358. But in that case, additional evidence supported the defendant's conviction for dealing in methamphetamine, including the testimony of the defendant's girlfriend that she saw the defendant manufacture the drug and used the drug with him. Id. at 360–61.

[14] In Veach, a forensic scientist conducted three tests on an unknown residue, including a presumptive test that was positive Fentanyl; a confirmatory test showing a “strong indication” for the drug; and a third comparison test showing some similarities between the residue and Fentanyl reference material. 204 N.E.3d at 335. Based on the three tests, the scientist concluded “Fentanyl was indicated in the residue sample” and testified at trial about the scientific processes she used to reach her conclusion. Id.

[15] In sum, neither Sciaraffa's nor Veach's convictions rested solely on a presumptively positive drug test. Either additional evidence supported the conviction or additional scientific testing was conducted on the substance.

[16] The State is correct that the Indiana Rules of Evidence do not apply in a probation revocation proceeding. See Ind. Evidence Rule 101(d); Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 550. And the burden of proof is lower in a probation revocation proceeding than in a criminal trial. See Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551. But the evidence introduced in probation proceedings must still bear substantial indicia of reliability, and substantial evidence of probative value must support the determination that a violation occurred. Neither standard is met here, where the sole evidence of Sparling's alleged drug use was a probation officer's testimony about an administered drug screen which she could not say was “actually positive” for THC. Tr. Vol. 2 at 19. In the absence of other evidence of illicit drug use on February 11, the testimony was insufficient to prove Sparling violated the terms of his probation as alleged.

Conclusion

[17] Insufficient evidence supports the trial court's determination Sparling violated the conditions of his probation. We therefore reverse the revocation of his probation and accompanying sanction.

[18] Reversed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The petition also referenced prior violations of probation for which Sparling had already been sanctioned, including that he had tested positive for methamphetamine and THC six weeks earlier and failed to submit support group attendance verification. These were not alleged as the basis for the petition to revoke, which Sparling's probation officer confirmed at the factfinding hearing.

2.   The State appears to concede it did not meet its burden in this regard, as the State does not respond to Sparling's argument or address the charges in Cause 372. The State instead contends the trial court could have found Sparling committed a new offense based on his alleged illegal drug use. But that is not what the State alleged in the petition to revoke probation.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Mathias, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.