State v. Banks, 2021 Ohio 4330

Aaron Banks was tried in Hamilton County Municipal Court on two counts of cruelty to companion animals (R.C. 959.131(B)) after neighbors observed and videotaped him striking two dogs and throwing a plastic crate at them on August 2, 2020.
Multiple neighbors testified they heard prolonged yelping and observed Banks strike a dog with a stick-like object and throw a crate that hit the dogs; a video in evidence shows the crate striking the dogs.
A Hamilton County Dog Warden lieutenant removed the dogs; Banks made a comment to the lieutenant — “What are you supposed to do when they shit everywhere” — and the dogs were terrified though no obvious bruising was visible.
One neighbor/landlord testified he heard only a few seconds of yelping and did not see abuse; Banks objected to a witness (Mark Curnutte) testifying remotely by Zoom as violating his face-to-face confrontation right because the witness had not been served a subpoena.
The trial court (citing a judicial administrative order and COVID-19 public-health concerns) allowed Mark Curnutte to testify via Zoom; the court found Banks guilty after a bench trial, imposed concurrent jail terms (30 days served), community control, forfeiture of the dogs, and a 15-year companion-animal ownership prohibition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether allowing a witness to testify remotely (Zoom) violated Banks’s confrontation right	Remote testimony was justified by an administrative order and COVID-19 public-health necessity; witness was effectively unavailable in person	Denial of literal face-to-face confrontation; witness hadn’t expressed COVID risk and had not been subpoenaed, so remote testimony was improper	Even if confrontation error occurred, any error was harmless because overwhelming other evidence supported conviction; remote testimony did not require reversal
Whether the evidence was sufficient / verdict against manifest weight	Multiple eyewitnesses, a video of the crate striking dogs, and Banks’s statement to the lieutenant supported knowing, cruel beating	Evidence insufficient to prove needlessly beat; landlord’s contradictory testimony showed reasonable doubt	Evidence was sufficient and verdict was not against manifest weight; conviction affirmed

Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. 1990) (face-to-face can be dispensed with when necessary to further important public policy and reliability is otherwise assured)
Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (U.S. 1988) (emphasizes the centrality of face-to-face confrontation to effective cross-examination)
Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 (U.S. 1895) (Confrontation right must occasionally give way to public necessities)
State v. Self, 56 Ohio St.3d 73 (Ohio 1990) (held Article I, §10 provides no greater confrontation right than the Sixth Amendment)
State v. Storch, 66 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1993) (construed Ohio’s confrontation clause to require live testimony where reasonably possible)
State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290 (Ohio 2010) (reaffirmed Self: Ohio’s confrontation clause affords no greater right than federal clause)