State v. Worley, 2011 Ohio 2779

Worley was charged in a 15-count indictment including counts for attempted murder, aggravated robbery, felonious assault, kidnapping, and carrying a concealed weapon; one- and three-year firearm specifications accompanied these counts.
At trial, Wells and Jones testified Worley, with Hansard, committed the shooting at a gas station in East Cleveland after Worley demanded money.
Perez identified Worley from videography and an in-person description at the gas station, and Cunningham learned from Joe and Hansard that Worley was involved.
Joe provided information to police hatched after the shooting, and Hansard provided details consistent with police knowledge; neither Joe nor Hansard testified at trial.
The jury convicted Worley on all counts; the court sentenced him to prison terms and merged several counts/specifications, totaling 29 years; Worley appealed challenging evidentiary rulings and jury-deliberation irregularities.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the admission of Joe’s and Hansard’s statements violated the Confrontation Clause, and mootness of the mistrial issue left unresolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause: admissibility of out-of-court statements	State contends statements were non-testimonial and admissible	Worley argues statements were testimonial and violated confrontation	Confrontation error; statements improperly admitted
Mistrial claim mootness	Not separately addressed	Contends trial irregularities	Moot due to first error; reversed on other grounds

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial vs non-testimonial analysis; confrontation applies to testimonial statements only)
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1965) (right to confront witnesses guarantees cross-examination)
Winbush, 187 Ohio App.3d 302 (Ohio 2010) (police-post-event statements as testimonial; Confrontation violation)
Graham, 58 Ohio St.2d 350 (Ohio 1979) (Confrontation Clause standard for evidentiary rulings)