Sate v. Gonzales, 2020 Ohio 4495

Jamie Gonzales was charged with one count of domestic violence (felony 4th) for assaulting his 70‑year‑old mother (L.D.) on Dec. 18, 2018, and later with six felony counts for violating a protection order arising from repeated contacts while jailed.
A municipal court issued a temporary protection order forbidding contact; while jailed Gonzales made ~173 recorded calls to L.D. and sent at least two letters urging her to quash the order and disparaging/threatening her.
L.D. did not appear at trial despite a subpoena; the state moved to admit her out‑of‑court statements under Evid.R. 804(B)(6) (forfeiture by wrongdoing), asserting Gonzales’s misconduct caused her unavailability.
The trial court held a hearing, found by a preponderance that Gonzales’s actions caused L.D.’s unavailability for the purpose of preventing testimony, and admitted L.D.’s statements; those statements and other evidence supported guilty verdicts on all counts.
At sentencing the court imposed consecutive terms (12 months for domestic violence; 9 months on each of six protection‑order counts) totaling 66 months, finding consecutive terms necessary to protect the public and supported by Gonzales’s criminal history.
Gonzales appealed, raising (1) Evid.R. 804(B)(6)/Confrontation Clause error and (2) that consecutive sentences were improper; the Sixth District affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Gonzales's Argument	Held
Admissibility of L.D.’s out‑of‑court statements (Evid.R. 804(B)(6)) / Confrontation Clause	Gonzales repeatedly contacted and pressured L.D. (calls, letters, threats to quash order) while under a protection order; this wrongdoing made her unavailable and was intended to prevent testimony, so forfeiture doctrine applies and her statements are admissible.	The state did not prove Gonzales caused L.D.’s unavailability or that preventing her testimony was a purpose of his conduct; admitting the statements violated his Confrontation Clause rights.	Court: State proved by a preponderance that Gonzales’s wrongdoing caused L.D.’s unavailability and was intended to prevent testimony; admission under Evid.R. 804(B)(6) was proper and did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
Consecutive sentencing under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public and to punish; the court relied on Gonzales’s criminal history (prior domestic‑violence conviction) as a statutory basis under subsection (c).	The record does not support the required findings for consecutive sentences; court erred by imposing consecutive rather than concurrent terms.	Court: Sentencing entry and hearing show required findings (necessity, non‑disproportionality, and criminal history under 2929.14(C)(4)(c)); consecutive 66‑month sentence is supported by the record and not contrary to law.

State v. McKelton, 70 N.E.3d 508 (Ohio 2016) (describing Evid.R. 804(B)(6) forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing standard)
State v. Fry, 926 N.E.2d 1239 (Ohio 2010) (forfeiture requires showing wrongdoing caused unavailability and that one purpose was to prevent testimony)
State v. Hand, 840 N.E.2d 151 (Ohio 2006) (forfeiture doctrine extinguishes confrontation claims when defendant’s misconduct causes unavailability)
State v. Conway, 848 N.E.2d 810 (Ohio 2006) (standard of review for evidentiary decisions and discretion of trial court)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (forfeiture‑by‑wrongdoing recognized as equitable exception to confrontation right)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause principles and reliability concerns)
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (U.S. 1878) (historical recognition of forfeiture by wrongdoing)