of Lieutenant Murphy's trial testimony as a prior inconsistent statement, the prosecutor informed the trial court that Lieutenant Murphy had noticed the inconsistency that morning when reviewing his previous testimony and had informed counsel of it. The prosecutor relayed Lieutenant Murphy’s explanation: I'm reading this [the testimony] and it looks like I’m saying it’s in the console. I'm just describing the console, not that the drugs were actually in that part of the console. The drugs were actually in the open part, but it does, when I'm reading this ... you know, it didn't come out very clear, but I remember those drugs, they were in the open part, not in the closed part. 5 . The trial court made her findings by a preponderance of the evidence. See Johnson, 763 A.2d at 712 (<HOLDING>). The prosecutor had asked that the judge do so
holding that the proper standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence holding that the standard of proof in revocation proceedings is a preponderance of the evidence holding that the standard of proof for dischargeability actions is the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that the preponderance standard is generally constitutional holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence