2021 Ohio 2608
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- David Ray Stringer pled guilty to first-degree aggravated burglary and was sentenced to community control (up to five years) with conditions: no contact with victims (including K.S.), daily curfew 8:00 p.m.–6:00 a.m., and attendance at a December 30, 2020 status hearing.
- Probation officer filed a notice of community-control violation after new criminal charges arising from an alleged December 15, 2020 incident at K.S.’s home (reported forced entry, assault, and seizure of cell phones).
- At the revocation hearing the State presented testimony from the probation officer and Deputy Tori Bargo, who relayed K.S.’s statements, described K.S.’s agitated condition, and testified to her own observations (injuries, disturbed residence, pizza boxes, dresser barricade, hole in wall).
- Defense objected to Bargo recounting K.S.’s out-of-court statements as hearsay; the trial court overruled the objection noting evidentiary rules do not strictly apply at revocation hearings; photographs of the scene and injuries were admitted.
- The court found violations (contact with K.S., curfew breach, new criminal charges, and failure to appear for the December 30 status hearing), revoked community control, and sentenced Stringer to an indefinite 3–4.5 year prison term.
- On appeal Stringer argued the revocation rested solely on hearsay and violated due process; the appeals court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation based on hearsay violated due process | State: hearsay admissible at revocation; testimony and exhibits showed violations | Stringer: court relied solely on hearsay (K.S.’s statements) so revocation was improper | Court: no abuse of discretion; decision not based solely on hearsay; hearsay also fits excited-utterance exception |
Key Cases Cited
- AAAA Ents., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Miller, 42 Ohio St.2d 102 (1975) (revocation hearing is informal; rules of evidence relaxed)
- Columbus v. Bickel, 77 Ohio App.3d 26 (1991) (revocation hearings permit consideration of reliable, relevant evidence)
- State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295 (1993) (sets prerequisites for excited-utterance hearsay exception)
- State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 (2012) (confirms standards for excited-utterance admissibility)