State v. Owens, 2012 Ohio 4393

Appellant Owens convicted by Richland County Court of Common Pleas on two counts of aiding and abetting breaking and entering, one count of aiding and abetting theft, and possession of criminal tools.
Copper theft at Century Link facility; 911 caller described a dark blue truck with a Dale Jr. sticker and two white males at the scene.
Appellant and two accomplices later removed cut wire from grass and loaded more into a truck; bolt cutters with rubber residue and copper shavings found during inventory.
Two prior in limine motions: exclude 911 recording as hearsay and exclude prior similar offense; motions denied.
Jury found Owens guilty on all four counts; sentences run partially concurrent and partially consecutive; restitution ordered.
Court remanded for resentencing due to HB 86 findings requirement under 2929.14/2929.19

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation/hearsay in 911 recording admission	State argues 911 recording non-testimonial and admissible	Owens contends recording is hearsay and violates confrontation	911 recording non-testimonial; Confrontation Clause not violated; assignment overruled
Admission of prior similar offense evidence	State admissible to show motive/intent given similarities	Prior offense unduly prejudicial and not necessary	Evidence admissible under Rule 404(B) to prove motive/intent; assignment overruled
Consecutive sentences and HB 86 findings	HB 86 permits consecutive sentences with statutorily enumerated findings	Trial court failed to make required HB 86 findings	Consecutive-sentence findings not demonstrated; remand for limited resentencing; convictions affirmed, sentence vacated

Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishes testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements in 911 contexts)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause right applies to testimonial statements)
State v. Stahl, 111 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 2006) (test for testimonial vs non-testimonial statements in law enforcement contexts)
State v. Comer, 99 Ohio St.3d 463 (Ohio 2003) (HB 86 effects on consecutive-sentence findings and reasons)