State v. Price, 2020 Ohio 132

On Aug. 24, 2018, M.H. reported that her boyfriend Tony Price assaulted and briefly choked her; Price was charged with assault, domestic violence, endangering children, and disorderly conduct.
While jailed on those charges, Price placed a recorded phone call to M.H. urging her to tell police they had the wrong man, minimize her original statement, and warning of financial/relationship consequences if she did not.
After the call M.H. told police she wanted to drop the charges and later sent a notarized letter to Price’s counsel saying she had overreacted.
The State moved to admit the recorded phone call under Evid. R. 804(B)(6) (forfeiture by wrongdoing); the trial court held a hearing and admitted the recording.
A jury convicted Price of assault, domestic violence, and intimidation of a crime victim or witness (R.C. 2921.04(A)); he was acquitted of child endangering and disorderly conduct was dismissed. Sentence: 45 days jail and 1,095 days community control.
Price appealed, arguing (1) admission of the recording violated the Confrontation Clause and Evid. R. 804(B)(6), and (2) insufficient evidence supported the intimidation conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Price)	Held
Admissibility of recorded jail call under Evid. R. 804(B)(6) / Confrontation Clause	The recording is admissible because Price’s recorded phone call constitutes wrongdoing that caused M.H. to be unavailable and was motivated at least in part to prevent her testimony.	The State failed to prove "wrongdoing" by a preponderance; admission therefore violated Evid. R. 804(B)(6) and the Confrontation Clause.	Court affirmed admission: preponderance showed wrongdoing and intent to silence; call also was non-testimonial, so Confrontation Clause not violated.
Sufficiency of evidence for intimidation (R.C. 2921.04(A))	The call’s threats about financial and relational consequences were intended to intimidate and hinder M.H.’s prosecution, satisfying R.C. 2921.04(A).	Price contended he did not make unlawful threats—he merely urged M.H. to recant or minimize, not threatening physical harm, so evidence was insufficient.	Court held evidence sufficient: creating fear of negative consequences to influence M.H. supported conviction under subsection (A).

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (recognizes forfeiture-by-wrongdoing as exception to confrontation right)
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (historical recognition of forfeiture doctrine)
State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 (Ohio standard for proving forfeiture by wrongdoing)
State v. Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing requires showing intent to prevent testimony)
State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 (Confrontation-Clause evidentiary rulings reviewed de novo)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (distinguishes testimonial vs. nontestimonial hearsay for Confrontation Clause)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (defines core concept of testimonial statements)
State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 (applies Crawford framework in Ohio)
State v. Cress, 112 Ohio St.3d 72 (distinguishes R.C. 2921.04(A) vs (B) and defines unlawful threat requirement)