State v. Heard, 2017 Ohio 8796

Hamilton Township police received a silent 9-1-1 call with audible commotion; officers located the Heard residence based on the call.
Officers met Robert Heard and his wife, Crystal Johnson; Crystal was separated from Heard and interviewed inside the home after appearing to have been crying.
Crystal told the officer Heard had pinned her, slapped and spat on her, and shoved her face into a pillow; Crystal did not testify at trial.
The prosecution introduced the silent 9-1-1 recording and the officer’s testimony repeating Crystal’s out-of-court statements over Heard’s objection; the trial court admitted both and convicted Heard of domestic violence.
On appeal the court held Crystal’s in-person statements to the officer were testimonial and their admission violated the Confrontation Clause, but the silent 9-1-1 call was nontestimonial and properly admitted.
Because the admitted testimonial statements were not harmless, the court vacated Heard’s conviction and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of Crystal’s statements to the officer and the 9-1-1 recording violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	State: both the officer’s testimony repeating Crystal’s out-of-court statements and the 9-1-1 recording were admissible (9-1-1 addressed emergency; officer testimony was proper)	Heard: both were hearsay and testimonial; admission denied his right to confront the witness	Court: Officer’s repetition of Crystal’s statements was testimonial and inadmissible (Confrontation Clause violated); the silent 9-1-1 call was nontestimonial and admissible. Conviction vacated and case remanded because error was not harmless

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (establishes that testimonial hearsay is barred by the Confrontation Clause unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary-purpose test: assess all circumstances to determine whether statements were testimonial)
State v. Ricks, 136 Ohio St.3d 356 (applying primary-purpose analysis to determine testimonial character of statements)