State v. Hawkey
2016 Ohio 1292
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2003, ten-year-old Corey shot and killed his father, Robert; the death was initially ruled accidental and the case closed. Nine years later Corey recanted, claiming Hawkey (his stepmother/adoptive mother) coerced him to shoot their father and that she had long abused/tortured him. The death certificate was later changed to homicide and Hawkey was indicted.
- Indictment (2013): aggravated murder, four counts of child endangerment (R.C. 2919.22(B)(2)), and insurance fraud; jury convicted on all counts and trial court sentenced Hawkey to life without parole plus concurrent terms.
- State’s case relied heavily on Corey’s later statements and expert testimony diagnosing severe abuse (Dr. Knox labeled it “child torture”); other evidence included scene photos, benefit paperwork, witness recollections, and forensic interviews.
- Defense contested hearsay admissions (statements to teachers/interviewers), the expert’s novel “child torture” diagnosis (Daubert challenge), and the State’s reopening to call Corey after resting.
- The appellate court found prejudicial error in admitting two categories of evidence: (1) certain out-of-court statements (hearsay) such as the teacher’s excited-utterance testimony about Corey’s 2012 disclosures, and (2) Dr. Knox’s testimony diagnosing “child torture” because that diagnosis lacked general acceptance/peer-reviewed support.
- Court reversed in part (ordered new trial on grounds of prejudicial evidentiary error), affirmed other legal sufficiency rulings (court held the recorded testimony, if credited, could support convictions), and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hawkey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of teacher’s testimony recounting Corey’s 2012 disclosures (excited utterance) | Teacher’s testimony admissible under Evid.R. 803(2): declarant was excited/upset when making statements | Statements were made long after the alleged events (nearly 9 years) and after opportunities to reflect; not contemporaneous or inherently trustworthy | Reversed admission: court held excited-utterance exception did not apply given passage of time and likelihood of reflective thought; admission prejudicial → new trial ordered |
| Admission of statements to clinician (Salter) and other investigators (hearsay) | Statements admissible under medical-treatment or non-hearsay purpose (to explain basis for expert opinions) | Statements were investigative, not for treatment; admission was hearsay offered for truth and bolstered core allegations | Reversed/admission prejudicial: statements were primary evidence against Hawkey and their admission harmed defendant; supports new trial |
| Admissibility of Dr. Knox’s testimony diagnosing “child torture” (Daubert challenge) | Expert testimony admissible; specialized experience supports opinion about abuse effects | Diagnosis of “child torture” was created by Knox, not generally accepted, not peer-reviewed or validated—fails reliability gates of Evid.R. 702/Daubert/Miller | Reversed admission: diagnosis lacked scientific acceptance/peer-review and objective methodology; trial court abused discretion in admitting it |
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions (weight reserved) | Evidence (Corey’s testimony + experts + scene inconsistencies + insurance paperwork) sufficient for a rational juror | Evidence rests on a single witness (Corey) with inconsistent statements and much hearsay; physical corroboration minimal | Appellate court upheld that, viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, evidence could support convictions, but because prejudicial evidentiary errors occurred a new trial is required (manifest-weight claim rendered moot) |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (expert testimony admissibility; reliability/factors for scientific evidence)
- Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607 (Ohio application of Daubert; expert testimony must assist trier of fact and be reliable)
- Potter v. Baker, 162 Ohio St. 488 (excited-utterance hearsay exception—four-part test)
- State v. Duncan, 53 Ohio St.2d 215 (child’s statement admissible as excited utterance when made soon after startling event)
- State v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 87 (extended unconsciousness does not necessarily defeat excited-utterance reliability)
- State v. Boston, 46 Ohio St.3d 108 (young child’s hours-later statement admissible as excited utterance given circumstances)
- State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295 (no per se time limit for excited utterance; focus on whether declarant remained under stress and not reflective)
- Rigby v. Lake Cty., 58 Ohio St.3d 269 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Valentine v. Conrad, 110 Ohio St.3d 42 (review of admissibility of expert testimony; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Hancock, 108 Ohio St.3d 57 (sufficiency standard discussion in Ohio)