not a criminal prosecution. Unlike probation and community control revocation proceedings, in a criminal prosecution the state must prove beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt that the accused committed a crime. See State v. Wilson, 686 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla.1996). Our courts have ruled that, while information contained in a laboratory report submitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule is admissible to establish a violation of community control or probation, such information cannot constitute the sole evidence supporting revocation. See Hogan v. State, 583 So.2d 426, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). It follows then that the state cannot rely solely on such hearsay evidence to sustain a criminal conviction. See e.g. Anderson v. State, 655 So.2d 1118 (Fla.1995) (<HOLDING>). Second, the issue of Mr. Williams’
holding that an affidavit  consisting entirely of inadmissible hearsay is not sufficient to survive summary judgment holding that where failure at rehabilitation will create an extreme risk to public safety the heavier weight given by the statute to the first and third factors evidences our legislatures recognition that the risk is too great to justify an attempt to modify this offenders behavior in the juvenile system holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence holding that the risk of convicting an innocent accused is too great when the evidence is entirely based on hearsay holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress