State v. Doss, 2019 Ohio 436

Background

Christopher Doss was charged with domestic violence and unlawful restraint after a 911 call on July 19, 2017; police found his girlfriend A.V. barefoot, injured, and "visibly upset."
Officers arrested Doss; at bench trial A.V. did not testify and the State relied on two officer witnesses and photographs of A.V.’s injuries.
Officer Carl Festa testified about A.V.’s out‑of‑court statements that Doss grabbed her neck and dragged her, and photographed her injuries.
The trial court acquitted Doss of unlawful restraint but convicted him of domestic violence and sentenced him to jail and a fine.
On appeal Doss raised six assignments of error, chiefly (1) Confrontation Clause violation for admitting A.V.’s statements through Officer Festa, (2) ineffective assistance for failing to object/move for acquittal, (3) insufficiency of the evidence, and (4) manifest weight.
The Ninth District affirmed: it held A.V.’s statements were nontestimonial (so no Confrontation Clause violation), rejected ineffective‑assistance claims, and found the evidence sufficient and the conviction not against the manifest weight.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Doss's Argument	Held
Admission of A.V.’s out‑of‑court statements (Confrontation Clause)	Statements were nontestimonial "initial inquiries" to assess an ongoing emergency and thus admissible when offered through Officer Festa.	Admission violated Sixth Amendment because A.V. did not testify and her statements were testimonial hearsay.	Court held statements nontestimonial under Davis factors and admissible; no Confrontation Clause violation.
Plain error / forfeited objection to hearsay	Any non‑preserved objection fails; but no constitutional error because statements were nontestimonial.	Trial court committed plain error by admitting testimonial hearsay absent confrontation.	No plain error; admission proper because statements were nontestimonial.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to hearsay or move for acquittal	Counsel’s performance was not deficient because there was no meritorious objection and State’s case was sufficient.	Counsel was ineffective for not objecting on Confrontation Clause grounds and for not moving for judgment of acquittal.	Strickland not satisfied: no deficient performance or prejudice because statements were nontestimonial and evidence sufficient.
Sufficiency / manifest weight of the evidence for domestic violence	Officer testimony, A.V.’s statements, photographs, and evidence they lived together suffice to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt.	Without A.V.’s testimony, evidence was insufficient and conviction against manifest weight; Doss offered alternate explanation (consensual sexual conduct).	Conviction supported by sufficient evidence; not against manifest weight — factfinder did not lose its way.

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause governs testimonial out‑of‑court statements)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (Statements during 911/domestic‑violence responses are nontestimonial when made to meet an ongoing emergency)
Melendez–Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Testimonial evidence implicates Confrontation Clause)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (Primary‑purpose test and totality of circumstances for testimonial determination)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (Sufficiency of evidence standard under due process)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Manifest‑weight standard)
Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Standard for sufficiency review on appeal)