State v. Campbell, 2021 Ohio 2050

Around 8:00 p.m., N.J. called police reporting her boyfriend, Aljihad Campbell, had assaulted her; officer arrived within minutes and observed bleeding injuries to her hand and knee.
N.J. told the officer Campbell shoved her, pinned her against a car, and put his hands around her throat until a neighbor yelled; Campbell left the scene.
Campbell was charged with domestic violence; at bench trial N.J. recanted and denied physical abuse, and the neighbor did not appear despite a subpoena.
Over defense objection, the court admitted (through the responding officer) N.J.’s out‑of‑court statements as excited utterances and also admitted the neighbor’s out‑of‑court statements.
The court convicted Campbell; on appeal he argued (1) improper impeachment of the State’s own witness without showing surprise/affirmative damage and (2) improper admission of the neighbor’s hearsay in violation of Evid.R. 804 and the Confrontation Clause.
The appellate court affirmed: N.J.’s statements were properly admitted as excited utterances (so Evid.R. 607 surprise showing was unnecessary); any error admitting the neighbor’s statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	State's Argument	Campbell's Argument	Held
Admissibility of N.J.’s out‑of‑court statements through officer (impeachment of State’s own witness)	Statements are admissible under Evid.R. 803(2) (excited utterance), so Evid.R. 607 surprise/affirmative‑damage requirement does not apply	Statements were not excited utterances: N.J. was angry (not frightened), injuries from slipping on ice, had time to reflect; statements unreliable	Court: admission as excited utterance was within discretion; overruled Campbell’s claim
Admissibility of neighbor’s out‑of‑court statements through officer (unavailability/Confrontation Clause)	Neighbor was subpoenaed but did not appear; statements corroborative and cumulative; even if admission erred, error was harmless given other evidence	State failed to prove admissibility under Evid.R. 804; statements testimonial and Confrontation Clause violation	Court: assumed possible error but found it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; overruled Campbell’s claim

State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion)
Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (appellate court may not substitute its judgment for trial court on discretionary matters)
State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (Evid.R. 607(A)’s surprise/affirmative‑damage requirement in context of impeachment)
State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295 (1993) (no per se time limit for excited‑utterance admissibility)
State v. Duncan, 53 Ohio St.2d 215 (1978) (excited‑utterance inquiry is case‑specific)
State v. Williams, 6 Ohio St.3d 281 (1983) (harmless‑error standard for constitutional evidentiary error)