State v. Anderson
2016 Ohio 7814
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Child A.A., age 7, alleged his father Alexander Anderson choked him with a Wii cord and slapped him after discovering damage to the controller; daughter witnessed the choking and slapping.
- A.A. initially told teachers and school staff the injuries were from wrestling, then described being choked and pushed into a doorknob; school reported to Children Services and police.
- Police interviewed Anderson; he admitted striking A.A.’s buttocks and placing a hand on the back of A.A.’s neck to guide him, denied choking, and said they had been roughhousing.
- State charged Anderson with one count of domestic violence; trial court held an Evid.R. 807 pretrial hearing, found A.A. competent but refusing to testify, and admitted A.A.’s out-of-court statements through several professionals.
- A jury convicted Anderson; court sentenced him to community control, jail time, fine, and costs; Anderson appealed raising three assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Judicial vouching | State contends court’s brief praise of child-witness was harmless | Anderson argues judge vouched for daughter, undermining fairness | Not reviewed on merits — no objection or plain-error argument; assignment overruled |
| 2. Admissibility of custody-history evidence | State sought to exclude extensive custody-history as irrelevant to incident | Anderson argued custody dispute showed motive to fabricate and bias | Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; any error harmless because jury already knew of ongoing custody issues; assignment overruled |
| 3. Admission under Evid.R. 807 of child’s statements | State argued out-of-court statements satisfied Evid.R. 807 and were admissible | Anderson argued trial court lacked particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and erred in admitting statements | Court declined to reach merits due to inadequate appellate record and lack of pinpointed objections; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44 (2002) (standard for reviewing discretionary evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (2007) (factors for assessing motive to fabricate in child statements for medical-treatment exception)
- State v. Storch, 66 Ohio St.3d 280 (1993) (Evid.R. 807 contemplates pretrial hearing addressing child’s ability to testify and initial admissibility determinations)