CONFRONTATION CLAUSE: HEARD V. COM. (SC 3/22/2007)

HEARD V. COM.
CRIMINAL:  Confrontation clause

2004-SC-000551-DG.pdf
TO BE PUBLISHED: AFFIRMING IN PART, REVERSING IN PART;  LAMBERT
DATE RENDERED: 3/22/2007

On discretionary review, SC reversed Defendant’s conviction for Second Degree Assault and affirmed conviction for First Degree Criminal Trespass. TC violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser by admitting into evidence the victim’s out-of-court statements made through Officer Gilbert and Dr. Wicker. Analyzing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), SC found out-of-court statements were clearly testimonial in nature. Disagreeing with the Court of Appeals’ decision, SC found TC’s admission of same was not harmless error.

Digested by Scott Byrd

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

One thought on “CONFRONTATION CLAUSE: HEARD V. COM. (SC 3/22/2007)

  1. Off hand have you seen anything addressing whether Crawford attaches to hearsay statements of a lab technician. For instance, if a DNA lab technician testifies as to the results of another technician’s work in a rape case, it seems to me that the first tech’s statements / notes / etc. were no done in preparaton for litigation–especially if he expected the second tech or head tech to be the one to testify. Cases on point in OH: State v. Crager–http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/3/2005/2005-ohio-6868.pdf