State v. Campbell, 2023 Ohio 2815

In 2019 Campbell pled guilty to amended third-degree burglary and received three years of community control; court warned a 24‑month prison term would be imposed for any violation.
Multiple affidavits alleged violations (failure to report, new convictions, positive alcohol screens); earlier allegations were admitted or continued, and court previously ordered residential treatment as a sanction.
In Feb 2022 the court-ordered MonDay Program discharged Campbell the day she arrived for alleged aggressive/racist conduct; probation filed an affidavit describing the discharge.
At the March 2022 revocation hearing Campbell denied the MonDay discharge allegation; the court sua sponte admitted the MonDay discharge summary as its Exhibit 1, with no state witness testifying and no defense testimony or cross‑examination.
The court relied solely on that discharge summary, found Campbell in violation, and imposed the previously announced 24‑month prison term.
On appeal the Twelfth District held the court committed plain error by acting as advocate and admitting the hearsay discharge summary without giving Campbell the opportunity to confront and cross‑examine its author; the revocation finding was reversed and the case remanded for a new hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of the MonDay discharge summary without testimony violated the Confrontation Clause and due process	Rules of evidence do not apply in community control hearings; no timely Confrontation objection; similar cases allow hearsay or testimony about the report	The discharge summary was testimonial hearsay, its author did not testify, and Campbell was denied the right to confront and cross‑examine adverse witnesses	Reversed: plain error — court abandoned neutral role, admitted only exhibit, and deprived Campbell of confrontation and a fair hearing; remand for new revocation hearing
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the discharge summary	State did not directly contest ineffectiveness on merits	Campbell argued counsel should have objected and defended her at the hearing	Not reached as moot after reversal of the revocation finding

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (establishes due process protections in probation/parole revocation hearings)
State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (describes Crim.R. 52(B) plain‑error framework)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (federal formulation of plain‑error review)
State v. Sanders, 92 Ohio St.3d 245 (2001) (plain‑error must be an obvious defect)
State v. Hill, 92 Ohio St.3d 191 (2001) (discusses what constitutes an error under plain‑error review)
State v. Hylton, 75 Ohio App.3d 778 (1991) (state must present substantial evidence of violation at revocation)
Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio App.3d 26 (1991) (lists due process rights in revocation proceedings)
State v. Prokos, 91 Ohio App.3d 39 (1993) (judicial impartiality required; court must not abandon neutral role)