State v. Johnson, 2023 Ohio 445

William Johnson was indicted for domestic violence (felony) and child endangering (misdemeanor) based on an alleged March 27, 2020 assault; he waived a jury and proceeded to a bench trial.
The State played a ~4:45 911 recording of the alleged victim, Tierra Rogers, who had driven to her parents’ home ~10 minutes after the incident, identified Johnson as the assailant, described the assault, said her child was with her, and mentioned a gun in the apartment.
Rogers did not testify at trial; the State conceded the 911 call was its primary (and effectively sole) evidence.
Trial court admitted the 911 recording over Johnson’s Confrontation Clause objection, treating it as an excited utterance/non-testimonial.
The bench court convicted Johnson on both counts and later sentenced him; on appeal the Eighth District reversed, vacated the convictions, and remanded, holding the 911 statements identifying Johnson and describing the assault were testimonial and their admission violated the Sixth Amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Johnson)	Held
Admissibility under the Confrontation Clause — Were Rogers’ 911 statements testimonial?	911 call was non‑testimonial: statements were excited utterances and made to obtain police assistance during an ongoing emergency; thus admissible.	Statements were testimonial under Davis/Bryant: call occurred ~10 minutes after the incident from a safe location, recounted past events and aimed at identifying the suspect for prosecution.	Court held key portions (identifying Johnson and recounting the assault) testimonial because no ongoing emergency existed when call was made; admission violated Johnson’s Confrontation Clause rights.
Manifest‑weight/sufficiency of the evidence	The 911 recording and scene photos corroborated assault and supported convictions.	Verdict against manifest weight; evidence thin and relied on inadmissible hearsay.	Court deemed manifest‑weight claim moot after reversing on Confrontation Clause; error was prejudicial because the 911 call was the State’s sole evidence.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Sixth Amendment bars admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements unless declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross‑examine)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial vs. non‑testimonial statements; primary‑purpose test; 911 calls ordinarily nontestimonial when made to address an ongoing emergency)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary‑purpose test requires objective evaluation of all circumstances; ongoing emergency is a crucial factor but context‑dependent)
Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (statements to non‑law‑enforcement actors can be non‑testimonial; context and questioner’s identity are relevant)