[DV_listserv] US Supreme Court Decision: Ohio v. Clark

[Domestic Violence issues]

Ohio v. Clark--Decided June 18, 2015

FACTS:
Darius Clark sent his GF away to engage in 'prostitution' while he agreed to care for her 3-year old son, L.P., and 18-month old daughter, A.T. A day after the GF left, teachers at L.P.'s daycare discovered injuries on L.P. When questioned, the boy indicated that the Respondent/Defendant (Clark) had caused them. Clark was subsequently charged and tried on multiple counts related to the abuse of both children. At trial, the State introduced evidence of L.P.'s statements to his teachers. L.P., under Ohio rules of evidence, was deemed an "incompetent" witness and did not testify. At trial, Clark objected to the introduction of L.P.'s statements to his teachers. The trial court denied the objection and allowed in the evidence. Clark was convicted and sentenced to 28 years. Ohio state's Appellate Court reversed his conviction. Ohio's Supreme Court, on a 4-3 vote, affirmed the Appellate Court's ruling and held that under the 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause, L.P.'s statements should not have been admitted. The US Supreme Court accepted the case and in this (unanimous) decision  REVERSES the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court, reinstating the convictions.

HOLDING:

The question in the case is whether the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause prohibited prosecutors from introducing L.P's statements to his teachers when the child was not available to be cross-examined. Because neither the child nor his teachers had the "primary purpose" of assisting in Clark's prosecution, the child's statements do not implicate the Confrontation Clause and therefore were admissible at trial.

For non-testifying witnesses, IF their statements are "testimonial": 1) the witness must be unavailable; and 2) the Defendant must have had a previous opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

To determine if statements are "testimonial," you must look at the "primary purpose" for the statement. A statement qualifies as "testimonial" if the "primary purpose" of the conversation was to "create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony."

If the statement is NOT testimonial, state and federal rules of evidence (not the 6th Amendment) apply.

The Confrontation Clause does not bar every statement that satisfies the "primary purpose" test; it does not prohibit the introduction of out-of-court statements that would have been admissible in a criminal case at the time of founding.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1352_ed9l.pdf



*****CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE*****

This e-mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee or it appears from the context or otherwise that you have received this e-mail in error, please advise me immediately by reply e-mail, keep the contents confidential, and immediately delete the message and any attachments from your system. 

************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/dv_listserv/attachments/20150618/bb076104/attachment.html>