State v. Hood
134 Ohio St. 3d 595
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Hood and three other men allegedly robbed a Parkview Avenue home in January 2009; a co-conspirator, Peet, was killed during the robbery.
- The State introduced cell-phone records to link Hood to the crime and to place him at or near the scene.
- The defense objected that the cell-phone records were not properly authenticated and thus inadmissible hearsay under Evid.R. 803(6).
- Detective Veverka explained how records were obtained via subpoena and testified about interpreting tower data, but no custodian or qualified witness authenticated the records.
- DNA evidence linked co-conspirator Hill to the robbery and places Hood in the vicinity; victims testified consistently with Hill’s account.
- Appellate courts held the cell-phone records harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; this Court agrees and affirms Hood’s conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cell-phone records constitute testimonial evidence under Confrontation Clause. | State | Hood | Records are non-testimonial if properly authenticated |
| Whether cell-phone records qualify as admissible business records under Rule 803(6). | State | Records lack custodian authentication | Records were hearsay without proper authentication; errors were harmless |
| Whether admission of unauthenticated cell-phone records violated Confrontation Clause analysis. | State | Violates confrontation rights | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given overwhelming other evidence |
| What is the appropriate standard to assess harmlessness of constitutional error in this context. | State | Chapman standard applies | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; other evidence overwhelming |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements defy admission without cross-examination)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (Business records may be non-testimonial; not automatically testimonial)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (Distinguishes testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements in confrontational context)
- Yeley-Davis, 632 F.3d 673 (10th Cir. 2011) (Cell records as business records; not necessarily testimonial)
- Green, 396 Fed.Appx. 573 (11th Cir. 2010) (Subpoenaed records not testimonial when kept for business purposes)
- Hirtzinger, 124 Ohio App.3d 40 (2d Dist. 1997) (Harmlessness of evidentiary error requires overwhelming evidence)