State v. Cook, 2021 Ohio 2157

Background

On April 8, 2020, appellant Robert A. Cook's father called 9‑1‑1 reporting Cook hit him, had busted his lip, and was still at the father's home; officers arrived and observed the father's bleeding lip and Cook's bloody right knuckles.
Officers arrested Cook for domestic violence and resisting arrest; the domestic‑violence charge was elevated to a third‑degree felony because Cook had two prior domestic‑violence convictions.
At trial the father did not testify; the prosecution played the father's 9‑1‑1 call and introduced certified judgment entries of the two prior convictions; Cook did not testify.
Cook repeatedly disrupted proceedings, was twice removed from the courtroom (watched by monitor), and the jury was instructed to disregard his outbursts; Cook was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 18 months.
On appeal Cook argued (1) the trial court failed to inquire into his complaints about appointed counsel (Deal), (2) improper removal from the courtroom (Crim.R. 43/Allen), (3) admission of the 9‑1‑1 call violated the Confrontation Clause (Davis), and (4) improper admission of prior convictions (Old Chief/Creech); he also raised cumulative‑error concerns.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cook)	Held
Trial court duty to inquire into complaints about appointed counsel (Deal)	No further inquiry required because Cook's statement to fire counsel was vague and counsel proceeded to act; defendant never renewed the request with specifics.	Court should have inquired when Cook voiced dissatisfaction and alleged various failures by counsel.	Court: Deal inquiry triggered only by specific allegations; Cook's complaints were vague/general, so no duty to inquire further. Affirmed.
Removal from courtroom (Crim.R. 43; Illinois v. Allen)	Removal was permissible after warnings because Cook repeatedly disrupted proceedings and continued abusive, disrespectful outbursts that impeded the trial.	Removal violated right to be present; prejudiced Cook's ability to confront witnesses.	Court: Removal proper after warnings; trial could continue with monitor and jury instructions to disregard outbursts. Affirmed.
Admission of father's 9‑1‑1 call (Confrontation Clause; Davis v. Washington)	9‑1‑1 statements were nontestimonial because made during an ongoing emergency to enable police response.	Call was testimonial (mostly a past‑events narrative) and admission violated Confrontation Clause because father did not testify.	Court: Call was contemporaneous to an ongoing emergency; primary purpose was to summon help; admission did not violate confrontation rights. Affirmed.
Admission of prior domestic‑violence convictions (Old Chief / Creech / Evid.R.404)	Priors were an essential element to elevate the offense; defendant only stipulated to document authenticity, not to the element; admission was necessary and not unduly prejudicial.	Priors should have been limited by stipulation or excluded as unfairly prejudicial under Old Chief/Creech.	Court: Unlike Old Chief/Creech, statute required proof of specific prior convictions as an element; admission of certified judgments was proper and not unfairly prejudicial. Affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Deal, 17 Ohio St.2d 17 (Ohio 1969) (trial judge must inquire when an indigent defendant makes specific complaints about assigned counsel)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1970) (defendant may be removed from courtroom for disruptive behavior after warning)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (statements nontestimonial if made to obtain emergency assistance; testimonial if primary purpose is to prove past events)
Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997) (when element may be proven by category of prior conviction, defendant’s stipulation can limit prejudice)
State v. Creech, 150 Ohio St.3d 540 (2016) (Ohio discussion of limits on proof of prior convictions and stipulations)
State v. Tate, 138 Ohio St.3d 139 (2014) (prior convictions may be an essential element that the state must prove to elevate the charged offense)