State v. Knecht, 2015 Ohio 4316

Terry Knecht was charged with one count of domestic violence alleging he head‑butted his wife, D.K., causing facial bruising; a temporary protection order was entered and later modified.
Police responded to D.K.’s 9‑1‑1 call; officers observed D.K. distressed with two marks on her face and testified she told them Knecht assaulted her; photos of injuries were admitted.
D.K. did not appear at trial; Knecht testified he did not assault her and offered an alternate explanation for his forehead bruise (crushing beer cans).
Trial court admitted the officers’ testimony recounting D.K.’s statements as non‑testimonial and as excited utterances and found Knecht guilty.
After conviction, D.K. submitted affidavits and made an in‑court statement recanting/contradicting her earlier statements and explaining the injuries differently; Knecht moved for a new trial, which the court denied.
Knecht appealed, arguing (1) admission of the officers’ hearsay statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and (2) the court abused discretion in denying a new trial based on the alleged newly discovered recantation evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Knecht)	Held
Whether D.K.’s statements to officers were testimonial, implicating the Confrontation Clause	Statements were non‑testimonial because made during an emergency response; admissibility governed by evidentiary rules	Statements were testimonial hearsay and inadmissible without opportunity to cross‑examine, violating the Sixth Amendment	Court held statements non‑testimonial (primary purpose was aid/protection), admissible as excited utterances under Evid.R. 803(2)
Whether trial court erred denying a new trial based on D.K.’s post‑trial affidavits and in‑court recantation	New affidavits were not new evidence that would likely change verdict; they contradicted but did not negate officers’ trial testimony	Affidavits and in‑court statement are newly discovered material evidence entitling Knecht to a new trial	Court held denial not an abuse of discretion: affidavits merely contradicted prior evidence and court found recantation not credible

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (holding testimonial hearsay inadmissible unless declarant unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (emergency‑focused interrogation often produces non‑testimonial statements)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary‑purpose test requires consideration of all circumstances; ongoing emergency is a key factor)
Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (formality and objective circumstances inform whether statements are testimonial)
State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Hood, 135 Ohio St.3d 137 (discussion of testimonial hearsay and Confrontation Clause)
State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295 (elements and analysis for excited‑utterance exception)