State v. Grabe, 2017 Ohio 1017

Kyree Grabe was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence for allegedly striking and pushing the victim (the mother of his child) in front of a Youngstown store; the victim was subpoenaed but did not appear at trial.
The bench trial proceeded without the victim; a responding police officer testified about his observations and what the victim told him at the scene.
Officer observed the victim agitated and noted a small red mark on her chest; he testified the victim said Grabe pushed her and was the father of her child.
Defense introduced the child’s birth certificate (no father listed) and argued the victim’s out-of-court statements were testimonial and barred by the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
The trial court admitted the officer’s testimony about the victim’s statements (relying in part on excited-utterance/hearsay principles) and found Grabe guilty; he appealed arguing (1) inadmissible testimonial hearsay rendered the evidence legally insufficient and (2) the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officer’s testimony recounting the victim’s out-of-court statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	State: statements were non‑testimonial because they were made during a response to a reported fight and helped meet an ongoing emergency (primary-purpose test); admissible as excited utterances	Grabe: statements were testimonial (no ongoing emergency, formal questioning), so admission violated Confrontation Clause and conviction cannot rest on them	Court held statements were non‑testimonial under the primary‑purpose test (totality of circumstances); admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause
Whether the evidence (viewed as admitted at trial) was legally sufficient and whether conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence	State: officer’s observations and victim’s statements (as admitted) together supplied sufficient proof of knowingly causing physical harm to a family/household member	Grabe: without the victim’s statements evidence is insufficient; officer’s report omission about the bruise undermines credibility	Court: under Ohio and U.S. precedent, sufficiency review considers all evidence admitted at trial (even if later found erroneous); the total evidence was sufficient, and the trial court did not lose its way — weight challenge denied

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (standards for sufficiency and manifest weight review)
Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) (double jeopardy and effect of sufficiency reversal)
Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (retrial permissible when reversal rests on evidentiary rulings)
State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 (2009) (reviewing court must consider evidence admitted at trial for sufficiency even if admission was erroneous)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause rule)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (primary‑purpose test: ongoing emergency vs. investigation)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (totality of circumstances for primary‑purpose inquiry; first‑responder context)
Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (2015) (primary‑purpose test applied to statements to non‑law‑enforcement and historical analysis of Confrontation Clause)