State v. Henning
2019 Ohio 2200
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Victim L.R. called 911 reporting that Chad Henning had choked/strangled her; officer photographed neck marks and took a written statement.
- Within ~2 hours L.R. made follow-up 911 calls attempting to retract her report, saying she had lied due to drinking and anger.
- A grand jury indicted Henning for domestic violence as a third-degree felony based on two prior domestic-violence convictions.
- At trial the State played the initial 911 call, Officer Lagasse’s bodycam video (showing L.R.’s statements), and two jail-call recordings; L.R. testified for the defense recanting her earlier statements.
- The jury convicted Henning of domestic violence and found the prior convictions; he was sentenced to 18 months.
- Henning appealed, raising (1) Confrontation / hearsay challenges to Officer Lagasse’s testimony and bodycam, (2) objection to admission of jail calls, and (3) that the conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Henning) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of L.R.’s statements via officer/bodycam (hearsay / excited utterance) | L.R.’s statements were excited utterances and admissible; bodycam corroborates officer testimony. | Statements were not excited utterances (time elapsed; no ongoing emergency); admission was hearsay and prejudicial. | Court: No abuse of discretion — officer/bodycam statements qualified as excited utterances given L.R.’s demeanor and timing; admission also cumulative of unchallenged 911 call. |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to admission of L.R.’s out-of-court statements | Admission acceptable because declarant testified at trial; Confrontation Clause satisfied. | Admission violated Sixth Amendment confrontation right. | Court: Overruled — L.R. testified at trial so Confrontation Clause claim fails. |
| Admission of jail-call recordings (hearsay and unfair prejudice under Evid.R. 403/804(b)(6)) | Recordings were probative (showed attempts to influence witness); admissible. | Recordings contained hearsay and prejudiced Henning; should be excluded. | Court: Even if erroneous, any error was harmless — other evidence (911 call, officer testimony, photos, in‑court testimony) supported conviction; no prejudice shown. |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: jury could credit L.R.’s contemporaneous statements, officer observations, and physical photos. | Henning: conviction is against the manifest weight because the victim recanted and gave alternative explanations. | Court: Affirmed — not an exceptional case; jury entitled to believe initial statements and officer evidence; conviction not against manifest weight. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Otten, 33 Ohio App.3d 339 (9th Dist.) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (manifest-weight discretionary standard; reversal only in exceptional cases)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Huertas, 51 Ohio St.3d 22 (elements of excited-utterance admissibility)
- State v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 87 (questioning that elicits excited utterance does not preclude admission)
- State v. Keenan, 81 Ohio St.3d 133 (Confrontation Clause satisfied when declarant testifies at trial)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause principles; declarant’s presence at trial limits clause application)
- Potter v. Baker, 162 Ohio St. (definition/requirements of excited utterance)