State v. Piercefield, 2023 Ohio 1781

Defendant Chanse Piercefield was charged with domestic violence and child endangering arising from an altercation with K.S.; the child endangering count resulted in acquittal at trial.
At bench trial K.S. appeared with counsel and invoked her Fifth Amendment right after answering preliminary questions; she did not testify about the incident.
Sergeant Ricky McAdams testified about his investigation, observed injuries to K.S. and the child, and concluded Piercefield caused K.S.’s injuries; the court admitted much of this testimony over hearsay objections.
Defense argued McAdams’ testimony impermissibly introduced K.S.’s out-of-court statements and lacked personal knowledge; the trial court denied motions for acquittal and found Piercefield guilty of domestic violence.
On appeal the Twelfth District held McAdams’ testimony did not constitute hearsay for Confrontation Clause purposes but was improperly admitted under Evid.R. 602 because his conclusion relied on statements and evidence he had not personally observed.
The court reversed solely on that evidentiary error, found the record (including the admitted testimony) sufficient to support conviction, and remanded for a new trial (double jeopardy did not bar retrial).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Piercefield)	Held
Admission of McAdams' testimony / Confrontation Clause & hearsay	McAdams’ testimony reported results of his investigation, not testimonial hearsay, so Confrontation Clause is not implicated	McAdams’ testimony conveyed K.S.’s out-of-court statements and was hearsay and testimonial, violating confrontation and evidentiary rules	Court: Not hearsay for Confrontation Clause (no direct repetition of K.S.’s statements), but testimony violated Evid.R. 602 (no personal knowledge) — admission was abuse of discretion
Sufficiency of the evidence to support domestic violence conviction	All evidence admitted at trial (including erroneously admitted testimony) is considered under Brewer/Lockhart; the record supports a finding of knowing physical harm	Without the improperly admitted portions, evidence is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: Viewing admitted evidence in the light most favorable to prosecution, evidence was sufficient; assignments alleging insufficiency were overruled
Double jeopardy / Remedy after reversal	Trial error (erroneous admission) — retrial permitted	If reversal amounted to insufficient evidence, retrial would be barred by double jeopardy	Court: Reversal was based on trial error, not insufficiency; double jeopardy does not bar retrial — case remanded for new trial

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay)
Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33 (1988) (distinguishes reversal for insufficient evidence from reversal for trial error regarding retrial and double jeopardy)
State v. Brewer, 121 Ohio St.3d 202 (2009) (appellate sufficiency review considers all evidence admitted at trial, even if erroneously admitted)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (sufficiency is a question of law; appellate standard summarized)
Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 314 (2002) (definition and limits of witness personal knowledge for testimony)