Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2020Accord State v. Williams, 38 Ohio St.3d 346, 348 , 528 N.E.2d 910 (1988) (finding “[a] statement is not hearsay if it is admitted to prove that the declarant made it, rather than to prove the truth of its contents”). * * * {¶ 43} This Court has further noted that a trial court has broad discretion1 to admit or exclude evidence in a suppression hearing, and it is well-settled that the rules of evidence and the hearsay exclusionary rule do not apply in a suppression hearing. 2020Accord State v. Williams, 38 Ohio St.3d 346, 348 , 528 N.E.2d 910 (1988) (finding “[a] statement is not hearsay if it is admitted to prove that the declarant made it, rather than to prove the truth of its contents”). * * * {¶ 43} This Court has further noted that a trial court has broad discretion1 to admit or exclude evidence in a suppression hearing, and it is well-settled that the rules of evidence and the hearsay exclusionary rule do not apply in a suppression hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bishop, Unpublished Decision (11-19-2004)
green
2 sentences2020(Other citations omitted.) Therefore, “ ‘the rules of evidence and the hearsay exclusionary rule do not apply in a suppression hearing.’ ” State v. Bishop, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2003-CA-37, 2004-Ohio-6221, ¶ 19 , quoting State v. Pipkins, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 15060, 1996 WL 50158 , *4 (Feb. 9, 1996). 2007We have held before that the hearsay exclusionary rule does not apply in a suppression hearing, for the determination of probable cause "depends upon the information relayed to [the officers] and whether they could reasonably have relied upon it, based upon what they knew at the time." State v. Bishop , Clark App. No. 2003-CA-37, 2004-Ohio-6221 , at ¶ 16 . | 3 | 2007–2020 |
United States v. Raddatz
green
2 sentences2020(Other citations omitted.) “ ‘At a suppression hearing, the Court may rely on hearsay and other evidence, even though that evidence would not be admissible at trial.’ ” Pipkins at *4, quoting United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 679 , 100 S.Ct. 2406 , 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). {¶ 12} Although “the trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence in a suppression hearing,” Bishop at ¶ 18, because the hearsay rule does not apply to suppression hearings, it was arguably error for the trial court to exclude the testimony in question on hearsay grounds. 2020(Other citations omitted.) “ ‘At a suppression hearing, the Court may rely on hearsay and other evidence, even though that evidence would not be admissible at trial.’ ” Pipkins at *4, quoting United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 679 , 100 S.Ct. 2406 , 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). {¶ 12} Although “the trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence in a suppression hearing,” Bishop at ¶ 18, because the hearsay rule does not apply to suppression hearings, it was arguably error for the trial court to exclude the testimony in question on hearsay grounds. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Myles, Unpublished Decision (1-19-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2008(Internal citations omitted)." State v. Purser , Greene App. No. 2006 CA 14, 2007-Ohio-190 , ¶ 11 . {¶ 12} In Ohio, "[i]t is settled law that the rules of evidence and the hearsay exclusionary rule do not apply in a suppression hearing." (Internal citation omitted). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Woodring
green
1 sentence2004Evid.R. 101(C); Evid.R. 104(A); State v. Woodring (1989), 63 Ohio App.3d 79 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.