the Court of Criminal Appeals held that because “the State failed to present any nonhearsay evidence to establish that D.M.D. was a ‘child’ when she was found in the bedroom with Sams,” a “necessary” element to establish a prima facie case of contributing to the delinquency or dependency of a child or to a child’s being in need of supervision, “the circuit court erred in revoking Sams’s probation.” 48 So.3d at 663. The State petitioned this Court for cer-tiorari review to determine whether the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals conflicts with well settled caselaw holding that a circuit court may consider both hearsay and nonhearsay evidence in determining whether a probationer violated the terms of his or her probation. See Ex parte J.J.D.,778 So.2d 240, 242 (Ala.2000)(<HOLDING>); Ex parte Toney, 854 So.2d 37, 39 (Ala.2002)
recognizing that   the court is not bound by the strict rules of evidence   at a probationrevocation hearing and must only be reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the probationer has violated a condition of his or her probation quoting martin v state 46 alaapp 810 312 241 so2d 839 341 alacrimapp1970 quoting in turn state v duncan 270 nc 241 245 154 se2d 53 57 1967 recognizing that zoning agency bodies   are not bound by strict rules of evidence recognizing that commission is not bound by statutory or common law rules of evidence holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence holding that the state must establish by the greater weight of the evidence that a defendant violated a term of his probation