State v. Myers
2020 Ohio 6792
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- May 30, 2019: police dispatched for an alleged domestic/assault in progress; Sgt. Kolek arrived within minutes.
- Victim appeared “visibly upset,” bleeding from the ear, with red marks and soaking-wet clothing; a witness and the victim said Jacob Myers assaulted her after she ended a romantic relationship.
- Myers was arrested and charged with domestic violence, assault, unlawful restraint, and disorderly conduct; he pled not guilty.
- At trial Sergeant Kolek was the sole witness; he relayed the victim’s out-of-court statements to him.
- Defense objected on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds; the trial court admitted the statements as excited utterances; jury convicted Myers of assault but acquitted on other counts; disorderly conduct was dismissed.
- Myers appealed, arguing admission of the victim’s statements violated Evid.R. 803(2) and the Sixth Amendment; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under excited-utterance exception (Evid.R.803(2)) | Statements were made moments after a startling event while victim was under stress; therefore reliable and admissible | Statements were hearsay and not admissible; defense did not identify specific statements | Court: No abuse of discretion — officer arrived within minutes and observed indicia of agitation/injury, supporting excited-utterance admission |
| Confrontation Clause (testimonial vs nontestimonial) | Statements were elicited to address an ongoing emergency; primary purpose was to enable police assistance, so nontestimonial | Statements were testimonial; admission violated Myers’ Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses | Court (de novo): Statements were largely nontestimonial given the ongoing emergency context and thus did not implicate the Confrontation Clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (established testimonial hearsay framework under the Sixth Amendment)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial vs. nontestimonial police questioning; ongoing emergency test)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (focus on primary purpose and emergency context; hearsay reliability rules relevant)
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (declares focus on declarant’s expectation when assessing testimonial character)
- State v. Huertas, 51 Ohio St.3d 22 (defines Ohio excited-utterance standard)
- State v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 87 (explains trustworthiness rationale for excited utterance exception)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (standard for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Madrigal, 87 Ohio St.3d 378 (Confrontation Clause does not bar all hearsay; only testimonial)
- State v. Nevins, 171 Ohio App.3d 97 (noting need to satisfy both Confrontation Clause and evidentiary rules)
- Potter v. Baker, 162 Ohio St. 488 (articulates requirements for an excited-utterance exception)