State v. Thompson, 2021 Ohio 1344

On June 25, 2019, H.T. was found bleeding from multiple head lacerations after a second visit to 405 Troy Street; she was hospitalized and later identified appellant (known to her as "X") from a photo array.
Police discovered blood at 405 Troy and at an apparent vacant house at 326 Troy; a bloody tire iron was recovered at 326 and tested positive for H.T.’s blood; H.T.’s and appellant’s DNA were found on the tire iron handle.
Two other witnesses (Joyce and her 16‑year‑old daughter, M.) directed officers to the addresses but were not located for trial.
Appellant was indicted for second‑degree felonious assault, tried by jury, found guilty, and sentenced to 7 to 10½ years imprisonment.
At trial the court admitted officers’ testimony recounting out‑of‑court statements (offered to explain police conduct and as excited utterances) over defense hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections.
The court limited portions of defense counsel’s closing that advanced detailed gang‑related factual theories not supported by evidence; defense argued this curbed his right to a fair trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thompson)	Held
1) Admission of out‑of‑court statements / Confrontation Clause	Statements were nonhearsay because offered to explain contemporaneous police conduct or were excited utterances; not testimonial, so Confrontation Clause not implicated.	Admission of the out‑of‑court statements (from Joyce, M., and others) was hearsay and testimonial, violating the Confrontation Clause and causing prejudice.	Court affirmed: statements admissible as explanations of police conduct or excited utterances; not testimonial; no Confrontation Clause violation or prejudice.
2) Limits on closing argument (gang theory)	Court correctly limited argument when defense asserted specific factual scenarios not in the record; counsel may argue reasonable inferences but not invent evidence.	Restricting the detailed gang‑violence/drug‑debt theory deprived Thompson of a fair trial and curtailed reasonable closing argument.	Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; defense could argue the gang theory only to the extent supported by evidence and reasonable inferences; excluding unsupported factual assertions was proper.

State v. Ford, 140 N.E.3d 616 (Ohio 2019) (only testimonial hearsay implicates the Confrontation Clause).
State v. Beasley, 108 N.E.3d 1028 (Ohio 2018) (out‑of‑court statements may be nonhearsay when offered to explain police conduct).
State v. Osie, 16 N.E.3d 588 (Ohio 2014) (same principle: statements admitted for a purpose other than proving truth).
State v. Ricks, 995 N.E.2d 1181 (Ohio 2013) (criteria for admitting statements to explain police conduct).
State v. Wallace, 524 N.E.2d 466 (Ohio 1988) (excited utterance hearsay exception explained).
State v. Loza, 641 N.E.2d 1082 (Ohio 1994) (scope of permissible closing argument and appellate standard for review).
State v. McKelton, 70 N.E.3d 508 (Ohio 2016) (counsel may not argue facts not in the record; limits on misrepresenting evidence).