State v. Hoskins, 2019 Ohio 4842

Defendant Bobbi Hoskins was tried by the Adams County Court for one count of domestic violence (R.C. 2919.25(A)) stemming from an October 27, 2018 incident with her husband, Freddie Hoskins.
After a verbal altercation, Freddie left the residence, went to a neighbor Kylie Walters’ home (across the street and down one house), appeared distressed and bleeding, and told Walters he had been hit.
Walters (a trained dispatcher) testified to Freddie’s statement; the trial court admitted it as an excited utterance over Hoskins’s objection.
Deputy Newland’s bodycam video and photographs were admitted; the video contained statements by both Freddie and Hoskins from the night of the incident (Hoskins admitted pushing Freddie).
After a bench trial the court found Hoskins guilty, sentenced her, and she appealed raising two assignments of error: (1) erroneous admission of the excited-utterance hearsay, and (2) conviction against the manifest weight / insufficient evidence.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the out-of-court statement admissible as an excited utterance and the conviction supported by sufficient evidence and not against the manifest weight.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of neighbor’s testimony as an excited utterance	State: trial court acted within discretion; statement was spontaneous and made under stress of the event	Hoskins: victim had time to reflect (walked to neighbor’s house), not sufficiently excited; "kind of upset" not enough	Admissible: four‑part Potter/Jones test satisfied (startling event, timing, relation to event, opportunity to observe); brief walk and visible bleeding supported spontaneity; questioning by neighbor did not bar admission
Sufficiency / manifest weight of evidence for domestic violence (knowingly caused physical harm)	State: bodycam statements, neighbor’s excited utterance, and photos show injury and that Hoskins pushed Freddie	Hoskins: victim’s trial testimony inconsistent, intoxicated, no medical treatment, therefore insufficient / unreliable	Affirmed: trial court reasonably credited contemporaneous statements, video, and photos; substantial evidence proves elements and court did not lose its way in credibility determinations

State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10, 984 N.E.2d 948 (Ohio 2012) (articulates four‑part test for excited utterance and timing analysis)
Potter v. Baker, 162 Ohio St. 488, 124 N.E.2d 140 (Ohio 1955) (origin of four‑part excited‑utterance test)
State v. Felts, 52 N.E.3d 1223 (Ohio 2016) (questioning that facilitates a declarant’s spontaneous statement does not preclude excited‑utterance admission)
State v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 87, 524 N.E.2d 466 (Ohio 1988) (standards on permissible questioning of declarant)
State v. Dean, 54 N.E.3d 80 (Ohio 2015) (admission/exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295, 612 N.E.2d 316 (Ohio 1993) (timing between event and statement is relevant but not dispositive)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380, 678 N.E.2d 541 (Ohio 1997) (standard for manifest‑weight review)
Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 461 N.E.2d 1273 (Ohio 1984) (trial court is best positioned to judge witness credibility)