State v. Pitts, 2018 Ohio 3216

On Jan. 5, 2017, jail inmate J.W. told a housing officer his wife H.W. was at a Motel 6 waiting for her drug dealer; officers relayed this to the Medina County Drug Task Force.
J.W. allegedly identified the dealer as Jason Pitts and described a black station-wagon/SUV arriving from Akron; agents surveilled the motel.
Agent Stayrook observed a black Dodge Magnum (temporary tag registered to Pitts) park, the driver enter the motel for about five minutes, then return to the car; Stayrook stopped the vehicle and Pitts later consented to a search.
Searches recovered $1,400 on Pitts and Ohio lottery tickets in the car; agents found a folded lottery ticket and a rolled dollar bill in H.W.’s motel room and observed H.W. with pinpoint pupils who admitted snorting heroin.
H.W. largely lacked present recollection at trial, testified she was high that day, denied buying heroin from Pitts, but admitted snorting heroin; a recording of her motel interview was played at trial.
Pitts was convicted at a bench trial of trafficking heroin (R.C. 2925.03) and forfeiture; he appealed asserting (1) improper admission of hearsay identifying him and (2) erroneous admission of a recording/recorded recollection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Pitts)	Held
Whether testimony relaying J.W.’s out-of-court statements identifying Pitts as the dealer was admissible as nonhearsay to explain police conduct	Statements were offered to explain why officers took investigative steps (nonhearsay under investigative-explanation doctrine)	Admission improperly connected Pitts to the crime and was hearsay; testimony should have been limited to non-identifying tip details	Court: Statements that identified Pitts were erroneously admitted, but the error was harmless given independent evidence (surveillance, Pitts’ brief motel stop, statements, money/lottery tickets) and conviction affirmed
Whether a portion of H.W.’s recorded interview could be admitted (and entered) as a recorded recollection despite her lack of present memory and her testimony that the recording may not reflect her accurate state	Recording reflects H.W.’s contemporaneous knowledge and may rebut her lack of recollection; recording could be used to impeach or as evidence	Admission violated Evid.R. 803(5) for substantive use and exhibit rules; recording did not meet recorded-recollection criteria because witness did not adopt it as reflecting prior knowledge	Court: Trial court erred in admitting the recording as an exhibit/substantive evidence, but judge found it was used for impeachment; any error was harmless and a bench judge would disregard improper evidence — conviction affirmed

State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard defined)
State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (officer may testify to declarant’s out-of-court statement to explain investigative steps)
State v. Ricks, 136 Ohio St.3d 356 (limits on admitting statements to explain police conduct: must be relevant, equivocal, contemporaneous, not unduly prejudicial, and not connect accused to crime)
State v. Conway, 108 Ohio St.3d 214 (harmless-error standard for confrontation/hearsay-type issues)