State v. D.W.
2019 Ohio 2193
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- D.W. was charged with multiple counts of rape (first-degree felonies with repeat violent offender specifications), obstructing justice, and tampering with evidence based on allegations by his former partner’s five-year-old daughter, N.B.
- N.B. was interviewed at Nationwide Children’s Hospital by a forensic interviewer (Emily Combes, CAC) and examined by a SANE nurse (Stacy Baumeyer); sperm fragments recovered from N.B. matched D.W.’s DNA.
- While in jail, D.W. spoke to N.A.B. and asked her to tell police he did not rape N.B.; N.A.B. submitted a recantation letter claiming she planted evidence.
- D.W. was tried in a bench trial, found guilty on all counts, and received an aggregate sentence of 27 years to life with parole.
- On appeal, D.W. argued the admission of the forensic interview was error because the interview primarily served an investigative (testimonial) purpose rather than a medical (nontestimonial) purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements N.B. made to the CAC interviewer were testimonial under the Confrontation Clause | The State: interview produced statements primarily for medical diagnosis/treatment and thus nontestimonial and admissible | D.W.: the CAC interview served a forensic/investigative purpose overall, so statements were testimonial regardless of content | Court held statements were primarily for medical diagnosis/treatment and therefore nontestimonial and admissible; no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290 (2010) (child-advocacy-center interviews have dual purposes; admissibility depends on primary purpose of specific statements)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21 (2002) (plain-error doctrine and its cautious application)