State v. Little
78 N.E.3d 323
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On Sept. 6, 2015 police responded after neighbors' children ran to Shirley Jones’s house and reported their mother (YJ) was bleeding and being assaulted by the children’s father, Larisco Little.
- Patrolman Matt Boss arrived ~10–15 minutes after a 9-1-1 call, observed YJ with visible injuries, and testified YJ told him Little grabbed her by the hair and slammed her head into a glass table; Little was later found and arrested nearby.
- A recorded jail call captured Little telling his mother he pushed YJ and she hit the table.
- YJ did not appear at trial; the State introduced Boss’s testimony repeating YJ’s out-of-court statement and also admitted the children’s statements to Jones and the 9-1-1 recording; two prior domestic-violence convictions of Little were also admitted under R.C. 2919.25(D)(4).
- Little was convicted of domestic violence; on appeal he argued (1) hearsay admission violated his Confrontation Clause rights, (2) verdict was against manifest weight, and (3) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument prejudiced his trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of YJ’s out-of-court statement to police | State: statement was a nontestimonial excited utterance / for emergency purposes | Little: admission violated hearsay rules and Confrontation Clause | Court: admissible under Evid.R. 803(2) and nontestimonial (primary-purpose test); no Crawford violation |
| Admissibility of children’s statements to neighbor (Jones) | State: present sense impression / non‑testimonial | Little: hearsay that implicated Confrontation Clause | Court: admissible under Evid.R. 803(1); objective‑witness test finds statements nontestimonial (young children, to neighbor) |
| Manifest weight of the evidence | State: testimony, photos, children’s statements, and Little’s recorded admission support conviction | Little: evidence insufficient / jury lost its way | Court: weight of evidence supports conviction; jurors could credit witnesses and the admission; conviction affirmed |
| Prosecutorial remarks in closing (misquoting children & referencing priors) | State: comments reflected admitted evidence and reasonable inferences; priors were an element so comment proper | Little: misstatements and emphasis on priors prejudiced him | Held: remarks were imprecise but not prejudicial; no objection = only plain error review; comments did not affect substantial rights; no reversible misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial hearsay / Confrontation Clause framework)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (primary‑purpose test for statements to police in emergencies)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (objective evaluation of ongoing emergency and primary purpose)
- Potter v. Baker, 162 Ohio St. 488 (Ohio test for excited utterance reliability)
- Taylor v. Ohio, 66 Ohio St.3d 295 (timing and spontaneity in excited‑utterance analysis)
- State v. Dever, 64 Ohio St.3d 401 (procedural approach: hearsay first, then Confrontation Clause)
- State v. Muttart, 116 Ohio St.3d 5 (Confrontation Clause applies only to testimonial statements)