State v. Harper, 89 N.E.3d 141

Todd Harper was convicted in Lucas County, Ohio of aggravated burglary (felony first degree) and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
The conviction rested in part on hearsay evidence admitted under Evid.R. 804(B)(6) (forfeiture by wrongdoing) regarding the victim’s statements.
The victim initially did not testify; she later testified after the court admitted the hearsay statements.
Evidence showed Harper allegedly engaged in conduct to prevent the victim from testifying, including jailhouse calls and letters.
Harper challenged the admission of the hearsay, the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and a consciousness-of-guilt jury instruction.
The court affirmed the conviction, rejecting Harper’s arguments on all assignments of error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 804(B)(6) admissibility was properly preserved and applied	Harper contends the court erred by admitting hearsay.	Harper argues lack of proper procedural foundation/availability not shown.	Forfeiture by wrongdoing properly supported admission.
Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain aggravated burglary	State asserts sufficient evidence of trespass and assault.	Harper claims insufficient proof of purpose or physical harm.	Evidence was legally sufficient; conviction not manifestly against weight.
Manifest weight of the evidence	State contends the evidence supports credibility determinations.	Harper argues the record shows no clear weight supporting conviction.	Conviction not against the manifest weight; jury could reasonably resolve credibility.
Consciousness of guilt jury instruction	Instruction mirrored evidence of witness intimidation.	No error where evidence showed efforts to deter testimony.	Instruction not an abuse of discretion; proper under the record.
Confrontation Clause impact of forfeiture evidence	Admission of statements did not violate confrontation due to forfeiture by wrongdoing.	Hearsay against defendant should be cut by confrontation rights.	No Confrontation Clause violation; forfeiture by wrongdoing applied.

State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735 (Ohio Supreme Court 2016) (defines 804(B)(6) forfeiture and standard of review)
State v. Hand, 2006-Ohio-18 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (requires showing defendant’s wrongdoing caused unavailability)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (forfeiture doctrine applicable to confrontation rights)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. Supreme Court 2004) (confrontation rights and hearsay limitations)
State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Ohio Supreme Court 2000) (foundation for confrontation and admissibility of hearsay)
State v. Grimes, 2005-Ohio-203 (Ohio First District 2005) (consciousness-of-guilt instruction framework)
State v. Richey, 64 Ohio St.3d 353 (Ohio Supreme Court 1992) (consciousness-of-guilt and witness-impeachment standards)
State v. Conway, 2006-Ohio-2815 (Ohio Supreme Court 2006) (extends consciousness-of-guilt analysis)