State v. Davis
2015 Ohio 5159
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Ansell Davis was indicted on two counts of felonious assault and one count of abduction for incidents in April and August 2014; trial court ordered Davis to have no contact with the victim.
- The victim was subpoenaed to testify at the November 24, 2014 trial but could not be located; a body attachment was issued and she was arrested after the trial concluded.
- The state sought to admit the victim’s out-of-court statements under Evid.R. 804(B)(6) (forfeiture by wrongdoing) and notified defense counsel by voicemail shortly before trial, but did not provide written notice as required by the rule.
- At a pretrial hearing the detective testified that Davis repeatedly called the victim (hundreds of calls while jailed) and had contact with her in violation of the no-contact order; jury heard these calls and other eyewitness and hotel-clerk testimony linking Davis to the April assault.
- The trial court found the victim unavailable due to Davis’s wrongdoing, admitted her hearsay statements under Evid.R. 804(B)(6), and the jury convicted Davis of two counts of felonious assault; the court sentenced him to 12 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state’s failure to give advance written notice under Evid.R. 804(B)(6) required exclusion of the victim’s statements | State: Substantial compliance — defense was notified by phone and received case-law reference, so no unfair surprise | Davis: No written notice as rule requires; lack of written notice violated Evid.R. 804(B)(6) | Court: No plain error. Phone notice sufficed under circumstances; even without the statements, sufficient other evidence made a different outcome unlikely |
| Whether the victim was "unavailable" due to Davis’s wrongdoing so forfeiture-by-wrongdoing applies | State: Preponderance of evidence that Davis’s contacts and statements caused victim to fear and avoid testifying, purposefully rendering her unavailable | Davis: Victim’s refusal to appear showed unwillingness, not unavailability caused by wrongdoing; state failed to prove causation and intent | Court: Trial court did not err. Evidence showed Davis violated no-contact order, repeatedly contacted victim, and urged her to leave town to avoid testifying; forfeiture exception applies |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Conway, 848 N.E.2d 810 (Ohio 2006) (standards on admission of evidence and trial court discretion)
- State v. Hand, 840 N.E.2d 151 (Ohio 2006) (interpreting Evid.R. 804(B)(6) requirements)
- State v. Pickens, 25 N.E.3d 1023 (Ohio 2014) (preponderance-of-evidence standard for forfeiture-by-wrongdoing)
- State v. Issa, 752 N.E.2d 904 (Ohio 2001) (respecting broad trial-court discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Waddell, 661 N.E.2d 1043 (Ohio 1996) (standard for plain error review)