State v. Hood
135 Ohio St. 3d 137
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Defendant Hood challenged admission of cell-phone records at trial as Confrontation Clause violation.
- Records were claimed by the State to be business records authenticated via subpoena; defense objected to lack of authentication.
- Trial court allowed use of the records with an authentication witness, but no custodian or proper authenticated foundation was established.
- Appellate court held admission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming evidence, including DNA, victims’ testimony, and Hood’s presence near the crime.
- This court granted reconsideration to address whether the records were testimonial and the proper basis for their admission, and whether the error was constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are cell-phone records testimonial under Confrontation Clause? | Hood argues they are testimonial. | State contends they are non-testimonial business records if authenticated. | Records may be non-testimonial if authenticated; in this case unauthenticated records violated Confrontation. |
| What authentication is required for cell-phone records under Evid.R. 803(6)? | Authentication was deficient or absent. | Records qualify as business records with proper custodian testimony. | Lack of custodian/qualified witness and authentication renders records improperly admitted. |
| Did the admission of cell-phone records violate the Confrontation Clause? | Hood’s rights were violated due to unauthenticated records. | Records, if properly authenticated, fall outside the Confrontation Clause as non-testimonial. | Admission was constitutional error due to lack of authentication. |
| Was the Confrontation-Clause error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | Error contributed to conviction. | Evidence was overwhelming; error is harmless. | Error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Does reconsideration affect Hood v. Ohio’s stance on Confrontation vs hearsay? | Not specified; focus on Confrontation analysis. | Correction clarifies overbreadth of hearsay/confrontation statements. | Reconsideration narrows to authentication-based Confrontation analysis; opinion clarifies distinction from hearsay |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause testimonial vs non-testimonial framework)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (defines testimonial nature of statements and Confrontation concerns)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (business and public records not inherently non-testimonial)
- Yeley-Davis, 632 F.3d 673 (2011) (cell records kept for business purposes; authentication required)
- State v. Hood, 134 Ohio St.3d 595 (2012) (addressed Confrontation/harmless-error framework and authentication)