State v. Miller
2016 Ohio 4993
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In June 2009 a vehicle with occupants fired through a sunroof, wounding C.R. (nonfatal) and fatally shooting M.M.; police linked a gold Taurus to the shooting and to appellant Bohannon Miller.
- Witness R.F. initially denied involvement but later told police he rode in the Taurus and identified Miller as the shooter; the State gave R.F. immunity in exchange for testimony.
- At trial R.F. refused to testify; the State sought to admit R.F.’s prior statements under Evid.R. 804(B)(6) (forfeiture by wrongdoing), claiming Miller threatened R.F. in jail to prevent testimony.
- The trial court held a hearing, heard testimony (including jail surveillance showing an interaction), found Miller threatened R.F., and admitted R.F.’s out-of-court statements; the jury convicted Miller and sentenced him to 51 years to life.
- On appeal Miller argued admission of R.F.’s statements violated Evid.R. 804(B)(6) and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Miller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.F.’s out-of-court statements were admissible under Evid.R. 804(B)(6) | State: Miller threatened R.F., causing unavailability; statements admissible under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing | Miller: Rule requires more than threats — needs killing or serious injury; evidence of threats was unverified and too general | Court: Admitted — threats suffice; State proved wrongdoing and purpose by preponderance; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether admission violated the Confrontation Clause | State: Miller forfeited confrontation rights by wrongdoing that made R.F. unavailable | Miller: Admission violated Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses (testimonial hearsay) | Court: No violation — forfeiture by wrongdoing extinguished confrontation objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay absent opportunity for cross-examination)
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (2015) (uses "primary purpose" test to determine whether statements are testimonial)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (primary-purpose analysis for testimonial statements)
- Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) (Sixth Amendment confrontation right applicable to the states)
- Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879) (forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine extinguishes confrontation claims when defendant caused unavailability)
- State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 (2006) (Evid.R. 804(B)(6) requires proof defendant engaged in wrongdoing with purpose of making witness unavailable)
- State v. Pickens, 141 Ohio St.3d 462 (2014) (discusses burden under Evid.R. 804(B)(6))
- State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (1992) (trial court resolves credibility and weight of evidence)