2019 Ohio 2555
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On April 14, 2018, R.P. was treated at Mercy Medical Center after an alleged assault; Officer Henderson observed injuries and recorded R.P.’s statements on bodycam.
- Defendant Aaron Hampton was arrested April 17, 2018; municipal court issued a no-contact order and he was bound over to the common pleas court and indicted for domestic violence with priors (third-degree felony).
- A jury trial was set for July 3, 2018; on June 22, 2018 Hampton made a jail-call to R.P. in violation of the no-contact order urging her not to appear at trial; the call was recorded.
- The State moved to continue the July 3 trial and filed a notice invoking Evid.R. 804(B)(6) (forfeiture by wrongdoing); the court continued trial to July 17, 2018 over defense objection.
- R.P. did not appear at trial; the State introduced Officer Henderson’s testimony (and parts of the bodycam via defense cross) and played the jail-call recording; Hampton was convicted and sentenced to 36 months.
- On appeal Hampton raised (1) confrontation/hearsay violations, (2) insufficient/manifest-weight challenge to conviction (primarily arguing lack of proof of “household member”), and (3) denial of speedy-trial dismissal for the continuance past the triple-count deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hampton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim’s out-of-court statements / Confrontation Clause | Statements admissible under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing (Evid.R. 804(B)(6)); jail call shows defendant sought to prevent testimony | Admission violated Sixth Amendment and hearsay rules; victim unavailable and not cross-examined | Court: No violation — forfeiture-by-wrongdoing applies; recordings admissible; excited-utterance and party-opponent doctrines also support admission |
| Admissibility of jail-call recording | Call shows defendant urged R.P. not to appear and is admissible (party-opponent admission / non-testimonial under circumstances) | Objected as hearsay and Confrontation Clause violation | Court: Call admissible; no confrontation violation; reasonable to treat call as attempt to silence witness/conspiracy to prevent testimony |
| Sufficiency and manifest weight (proof of "family or household member") | Evidence (testimony that they resided together, victim’s statements, jail call) suffices to show cohabitation and physical harm | Argues State failed to prove cohabitation/timing and attacks police investigation and evidence weight | Court: Sufficiency met and verdict not against manifest weight; credibility/issues for jury to resolve |
| Speedy trial / Continuance past triple-count deadline | Continuance to address newly discovered evidence and to pursue witness availability was reasonable; continuance tolled time | Trial date continued beyond 90-day triple-count; argued statutory speedy-trial violation requiring dismissal | Court: Denial of dismissal affirmed; one-day extension was reasonable and properly tolled under statutory provisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements by unavailable witnesses inadmissible absent prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception when defendant intended to make witness unavailable)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (distinguishing testimonial from non-testimonial statements in Confrontation analysis)
- State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (2010) (discussing Ohio application of forfeiture-by-wrongdoing)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for sufficiency review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (manifest-weight review standard)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (1987) (trial court discretion on admissibility of evidence)
- State v. Martin, 20 Ohio App.3d 172 (1983) (guidance on ordering new trial for manifest miscarriage of justice)