2022 Ohio 1936
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background:
- Appellant Kelly Jones was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated arson, felonious assault, arson, attempted murder, and domestic violence after Ernestine Dumas suffered burns covering ~16.5% of her body.
- Dumas made multiple out-of-court statements (a 911 call and statements captured on police bodycam and told to officers/detectives) identifying Jones as the attacker; Dumas did not testify at trial (no explanation in record for her absence).
- The trial court admitted the 911 recording as an excited utterance and allowed officers to testify about Dumas’s identifications and repeating statements; defense objected under the Confrontation Clause and moved in limine to exclude them.
- The jury convicted Jones of aggravated arson, felonious assault, arson, and domestic violence (not guilty on attempted murder and one aggravated arson count); trial court imposed a lengthy aggregate sentence under Reagan Tokes.
- On appeal Jones argued primarily that admission of Dumas’s statements violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation right; the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the statements were testimonial and the error was not harmless.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admission of Dumas’s out-of-court statements violated the Confrontation Clause | State: the 911 call and on-scene/bodycam statements were admissible (excited utterance/informal) and harmless | Jones: statements were testimonial, he had no prior opportunity to cross-examine, admission violated Sixth Amendment | The statements were testimonial (emergency had ended, statements recounted "what happened"); admission violated Confrontation Clause and was not harmless — conviction reversed and remanded for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior cross-examination opportunity)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes statements describing ongoing emergency from testimonial statements about past events; provides factors to identify testimonial statements)
- State v. Stahl, 111 Ohio St.3d 186 (focus on declarant’s reasonable expectation that statement would be available for use at trial when determining testimonial nature)
- State v. Arnold, 126 Ohio St.3d 290 (adopts Davis factors and explains application to interrogation and testimonial analysis)