State v. Finklea
2019 Ohio 2199
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On Dec. 5, 2017 T.P. reported that her fiancé, Oliver Finklea, grabbed her, tore her shirt, and slapped her; police arrested Finklea and charged him with domestic violence (enhanced to a third-degree felony based on prior convictions).
- The State sought to admit T.P.’s written statement under Evid.R. 804(B)(6) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing), anticipating she would not testify because of Finklea’s influence.
- Finklea made recorded jail calls urging T.P. to recant, prepare a contradictory affidavit, and refuse court appearances; T.P. later did not appear at trial.
- The trial court admitted T.P.’s written statement and the recorded call; Finklea (self-represented at trial) was convicted and sentenced to 3 years in prison.
- On appeal Finklea challenged (1) admission of the statement and Confrontation Clause implications, (2) exclusion of T.P.’s grand jury testimony, and (3) imposition of the maximum sentence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Finklea's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim’s out-of-court written statement under Evid.R. 804(B)(6) | T.P. was rendered unavailable by Finklea’s wrongdoing (shown by jail call) so forfeiture exception applies | State failed to show unavailability; admission violated confrontation and evidentiary rules | Court: Admission proper; trial court did not abuse discretion — preponderance showed wrongdoing caused unavailability and forfeited confrontation rights |
| Exclusion of grand jury testimony (Finklea wanted to read it at trial) | N/A (State opposed) | Grand jury testimony is admissible under Evid.R. 804(B)(1) because T.P. was unavailable | Court: Exclusion proper — Finklea himself procured unavailability, so declarant not "unavailable" for his own proffer under Evid.R. 804(A) |
| Imposition of maximum 3-year sentence | Trial court considered statutory factors; sentence within statutory range | Court failed to state consideration of R.C. 2929.12 and relied on facts not in record | Court: Affirmed — no required findings for maximum sentence; appellate review limited by incomplete record (PSI not in record), so presume regularity |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings and discussion of forfeiture-by-wrongdoing)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) (standard for appellate review of trial court discretion)
- State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107 (1990) (evidentiary review principles)
- State v. Keairns, 9 Ohio St.3d 228 (1984) (proponent must show unavailability despite reasonable efforts)
- McKelton v. State, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (preponderance standard for proving forfeiture-by-wrongdoing)
- State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (2010) (forfeiture and required showing that wrongdoing caused unavailability)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine and mens rea discussion)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (forfeiture extinguishes confrontation claims when defendant procures witness absence)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause principles)
- State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 (2006) (trial court discretion to impose sentence within statutory range without specific findings)