State v. Heard, 2014 Ohio 4643

Karl Heard, a convicted sex offender, was required by R.C. 2950.05 to notify the sheriff when he changed residence.
Heard had registered 2586 Seegar Avenue (owned by Stanley Thompson) as his residence in March 2013.
On May 24, 2013, Officer Adam Breeze visited the Seegar property to verify residency; Thompson told Breeze that Heard did not live "in the house" and had been "gone for months," staying with a half sister in Price Hill or at Livingston.
Thompson testified at trial that Heard in fact stayed on the property (in a truck or shed) and sometimes stayed elsewhere; he had signed the verification form but explained his earlier statements as referring to the house, not the property.
The trial court admitted the sex-offender-verification form and Breeze’s testimony recounting Thompson’s statements; the court relied on those statements as substantive proof that Heard changed address without notice.
The court of appeals reversed, holding the only evidence proving the offense was hearsay (prior inconsistent statements and a police report), which were admissible for impeachment only and insufficient as substantive evidence; Heard was discharged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thompson’s out-of-court statements to Officer Breeze and Breeze’s notation on the verification form were admissible as substantive evidence	The State treated Breeze’s testimony and the verification form as admissible substantive evidence (business/public record exception) proving Heard no longer resided at the registered address	Heard argued those statements were prior inconsistent/hearsay and, if admitted, could be used only to impeach Thompson’s credibility, not as substantive proof	Court held the statements were hearsay; prior inconsistent statements admissible for impeachment only and Officer Breeze’s report was not admissible under the public‑records exception in a criminal case (police observations excluded)
Whether the remaining admissible evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for failure to notify of an address change under R.C. 2950.05	The State relied on Breeze’s account and the verification notation as proof of relocation without notice	Heard argued that without the improperly considered hearsay there was no admissible evidence that he had moved from the registered address	Court held that, with the hearsay removed, the State presented insufficient evidence to prove Heard changed his residence; conviction reversed and defendant discharged

Dayton v. Combs, 94 Ohio App.3d 291 (2d Dist. 1994) (prior inconsistent statements admissible for impeachment and limited as substantive evidence if hearsay)
State v. Leonard, 104 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2004) (public‑records exception excludes police observations in criminal cases unless offered by defendant)
State v. Ward, 15 Ohio St.3d 355 (Ohio 1984) (clarifies exclusion of police investigatory observations from public‑records hearsay exception)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)