State v. Parker, 2023 Ohio 2722

On Nov. 4, 2022, three eyewitnesses observed Robert J. Parker kicking a woman who was on the ground and pressed against a fence in Sidney, Ohio; the victim was screaming and bleeding.
One witness called police; Parker left on his bicycle before officers arrived.
The victim was taken to the hospital and, during a recorded interaction captured on the officer’s body-worn camera, identified Parker as her assailant; that victim did not appear or testify at trial despite being subpoenaed.
Parker was charged with Assault (R.C. 2903.13(A)), tried by jury, convicted of a first-degree misdemeanor, and sentenced to 180 days in jail; judgment entered March 16, 2023.
At trial, defense objected to admission of the hospital body-camera footage as violating the Confrontation Clause; the trial court admitted the footage over objection.
On appeal, the court reviewed the Confrontation-Clause issue de novo and addressed whether admission of the recorded hospital identification was reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of hospital body-camera recording of victim’s identification violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	State argued the recording was admissible (suggested it fit hearsay exceptions/was non-testimonial or cumulative)	Parker argued the hospital identification was testimonial, the victim was unavailable and un-cross-examined, so admission violated the Confrontation Clause	Court held the hospital recording was hearsay and violated the Confrontation Clause but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because three eyewitnesses independently identified Parker; conviction affirmed

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (establishes that out-of-court testimonial statements are barred by the Confrontation Clause unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (announces the "primary purpose" test to distinguish testimonial from nontestimonial statements in emergency contexts)
Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (addresses conclusions about testimonial character and emphasizes the risk of unfairness from untested out-of-court statements)
State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (2016) (Ohio Supreme Court: de novo review for Confrontation Clause evidentiary rulings and harmless-error guidance)
State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12 (2014) (discusses testimonial statements and Crawford’s applicability in Ohio)
State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (2001) (Confrontation Clause can bar evidence that otherwise fits a hearsay exception)
State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 (2006) (standard for reviewing trial-court evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion framework)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (defines abuse of discretion standard)