State v. Love, 2011 Ohio 4147

Larry W. Love was convicted by a Gallia County jury of seven drug- and property-related counts after a controlled buy involving a confidential informant (CI).
deputies used audio/video surveillance and a pre-buy interview with the CI to structure the transaction.
Johnson, Appellant’s codefendant, testified to a different version of events surrounding the sale.
the state introduced the CI’s pre-buy and post-buy out-of-court statements; Love objected to cross-examination of the CI.
the trial court admitted the CI’s statements, raising confrontation-clause concerns under Crawford and Ohio law.
the court later held two trafficking/possession counts (counts 5 and 6) should have merged as allied offenses, remanding for sentencing while affirming other aspects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the CI’s testimonial statements violated the Confrontation Clause	Love contends CI statements were testimonial and uncross-examined	Love argues improper admission without CI cross-examination	Admission was harmless error; CI statements testimonial but harmless
Whether counts 5 and 6 merged as allied offenses	Love argues merger required for same conduct	Johnson requires merger where same act and intent	Counts 5 and 6 must merge; remand for sentencing handling of allied-offense merger

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires cross-examination for testimonial statements)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 153 (Ohio 2010) (Determines when offenses are allied and must merge under 2941.25)
State v. Whitfield, 124 Ohio St.3d 319 (Ohio 2010) (Allied-offense analysis on remand; discretion on which offense to pursue)
Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1969) (Harmless-error standard for improper admission of evidence)
Conway v. State, Ohio 2006 (Ohio 2006) (Harmlessness of improperly admitted evidence where cumulative)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (Determines testimonial nature of statements in police interrogation)