State v. Ricks, 136 Ohio St. 3d 356

Mar an issue arose whether an alleged accomplice’s out-of-court statements, made to police and relayed by an investigating officer, could be admitted to explain the officer’s conduct rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Gipson, the alleged accomplice, gave statements identifying Ricks (the defendant) as “Peanut”; Steckel testified about those statements to connect Gipson’s information to the investigation.
The trial court admitted Gipson’s statements under a Blevins-like framework to explain police conduct; the jury received a limiting instruction distinguishing nonhearsay purposes from truthfulness.
The appellate court affirmed the nonhearsay basis but allowed the evidence to reach the jury, relying on Blevins and related authorities.
The Supreme Court of Ohio granted discretionary review to resolve whether admission of Gipson’s statements through Steckel violated the Confrontation Clause and whether harmless-error analysis warranted retrial.
The court ultimately held that the admission violated the Confrontation Clause and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gipson’s statements identified by Gipson and repeated by Steckel violated the Confrontation Clause	Ricks argues statements were nonhearsay to explain police conduct	State contends statements were admissible as nonhearsay to explain investigation	Yes, violated Confrontation Clause
Whether the Gipson statements were admissible as nonhearsay under Blevins/Thomas to explain police conduct	Steckel’s testimony explains investigation, not truth	Statements fall within Blevins to explain conduct	No, not permissible; would be hearsay if used to prove truth
Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	There was sufficient other evidence to convict without the statements	The statements contributed to guilt	Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; remand for new trial
Whether the trial court’s limiting instruction cured the prejudice	Limiting instruction isolates nonhearsay purpose	Instruction adequate to prevent misuse	No, limiting instruction insufficient to cure error
Whether Gipson’s statements linking Ricks to the crime were improperly used to tie Ricks to the victim via Gipson	Statements were necessary to understand investigation	Connections prejudicially implied guilt	Constitutional error; reversal and remand

State v. Thomas, 61 Ohio St.2d 223 (Ohio 1980) (extrajudicial statements admissible to explain investigatory actions, not to prove truth)
State v. Blevins, 36 Ohio App.3d 147 (Ohio App.3d 1987) (statements explaining police conduct; requires relevance, equivocality, contemporaneity, and balance under Evid.R. 403(A))
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements require unavailable declarant and cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishes testimonial vs. non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause)
State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49 (Ohio 2001) (accomplice statements implicated in the confrontation analysis)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (confrontation rights apply to forensic affidavits; cross-examination importance)
Richcreek v. State, 196 Ohio App.3d 505 (Ohio App.3d 2011) (assesses prejudice under Blevins and Evid.R. 403(A))
State v. Humphrey, 2008-Ohio-6302 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 2008) (limits on using officer-conduct explanations to introduce prejudicial statements)
State v. Thomas, 61 Ohio St.2d 223 (Ohio 1980) (nontruth purpose for extrajudicial statements; background authority)