sense impression exception in Ohio

28 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2025 11 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.

Followed or applied (18)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Smithgreen ohioctapp · 2017 · cited in 4 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2021–2023 2 sentences 2023See also State v. Smith, 2017-Ohio-8558 , 99 N.E.3d 1230, ¶ 37 (1st Dist.) (“911 calls are usually admissible under the excited utterance or the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule”). {¶54} “‘While temporal proximity is critical to a present sense impression analysis, there is no bright line rule as to what amount of elapsed time precludes a finding that the exception applies.’” Id. at ¶ 27, quoting State v. May, 3d Dist. 2023See also State v. Smith, 2017-Ohio-8558 , 99 N.E.3d 1230, ¶ 37 (1st Dist.) (“911 calls are usually admissible under the excited utterance or the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule”). {¶54} “‘While temporal proximity is critical to a present sense impression analysis, there is no bright line rule as to what amount of elapsed time precludes a finding that the exception applies.’” Id. at ¶ 27, quoting State v. May, 3d Dist.	4	4
State v. Travisgreen ohioctapp · 2006 · cited in 4 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2012–2023 2 sentences 2023“Some courts have found that the present sense impression exception applies even where the 911 call is made up to an hour after the event perceived.” Id., citing State v. Travis, 165 Ohio App.3d 626 , 2006-Ohio-787 , 847 N.E.2d 1237, ¶ 37 (2d Dist.). {¶55} In this case, the surveillance video demonstrates that the robbery of Hernandez occurred at approximately 4:20 p.m. 2023“Some courts have found that the present sense impression exception applies even where the 911 call is made up to an hour after the event perceived.” Id., citing State v. Travis, 165 Ohio App.3d 626 , 2006-Ohio-787 , 847 N.E.2d 1237, ¶ 37 (2d Dist.). {¶55} In this case, the surveillance video demonstrates that the robbery of Hernandez occurred at approximately 4:20 p.m.	4	4
Cox v. Oliver MacHinery Co.green ohioctapp · 1987 · cited in 5 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2003–2024 2 sentences 2024This rule assumes that “statements or perceptions, describing the event and uttered in close temporal -15- Case No. 9-23-65 proximity to the event, bear a high degree of trustworthiness.” State v. Dixon, 152 Ohio App.3d 760 , 2003-Ohio-2550 , ¶ 12, quoting Cox v. Oliver Machinery Co., 41 Ohio App.3d 28, 35 , 534 N.E.2d 855 (12th Dist.1987). {¶34} Under the present sense impression exception, “‘[t]he key to the statement’s trustworthiness is the spontaneity of the statement, either contemporaneous with the event or immediately thereafter. 2024This rule assumes that “statements or perceptions, describing the event and uttered in close temporal -15- Case No. 9-23-65 proximity to the event, bear a high degree of trustworthiness.” State v. Dixon, 152 Ohio App.3d 760 , 2003-Ohio-2550 , ¶ 12, quoting Cox v. Oliver Machinery Co., 41 Ohio App.3d 28, 35 , 534 N.E.2d 855 (12th Dist.1987). {¶34} Under the present sense impression exception, “‘[t]he key to the statement’s trustworthiness is the spontaneity of the statement, either contemporaneous with the event or immediately thereafter.	3	5
State v. Martingreen ohioctapp · 2016 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2019–2024 2 sentences 2024Cuyahoga No. 111309, 2022-Ohio-4504, ¶ 25 , quoting State v. Martin, 2016-Ohio-225 , 57 N.E.3d 411 , ¶ 59 (5th Dist.) (“911 calls are generally admissible as excited utterances or under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.”). 2019See Martin, 2016-Ohio-225, at ¶ 59 (“9-1-1 calls are generally admissible as excited utterances or under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.”), citing Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 400 , 134 S.Ct. 1683 (2014), State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 107-108 (1997), State v. Johnson, 10th Dist.	1	2
State v. Taylorgreen ohio · 1993 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2016–2020 2 sentences 2020Portage No. 2008-P-0063, 2009-Ohio-4101 , ¶58, quoting State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295, 303 (1993) (emphasis deleted); see also State v. Butcher, 170 Ohio App.3d 52 , 2007-Ohio-118 , ¶31 (11th Dist.). {¶27} There is also a present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, which is limited to “describing or explaining” the event. 2016State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295 , 612 N.E.2d 316 (1993). {¶59} 9-1-1 calls are generally admissible as excited utterances or under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.	1	2
State v. Smithgreen ohio · 1997 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2016–2019 2 sentences 2019See Martin, 2016-Ohio-225, at ¶ 59 (“9-1-1 calls are generally admissible as excited utterances or under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.”), citing Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 400 , 134 S.Ct. 1683 (2014), State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 107-108 (1997), State v. Johnson, 10th Dist. 2016Navarrete v. California, U.S. , 134 S.Ct. 1680 , 1689, 188 L.Ed. 680 (2014); State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St. 3d 89, 107-108 , 1997-Ohio-355 , 684 N.E.2d 668 ; State v. Johnson, 10th Dist.	1	2
Prado Navarette v. Californiagreen scotus · 2014 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019See Martin, 2016-Ohio-225, at ¶ 59 (“9-1-1 calls are generally admissible as excited utterances or under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.”), citing Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 400 , 134 S.Ct. 1683 (2014), State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 107-108 (1997), State v. Johnson, 10th Dist. 2019See Martin, 2016-Ohio-225, at ¶ 59 (“9-1-1 calls are generally admissible as excited utterances or under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.”), citing Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 400 , 134 S.Ct. 1683 (2014), State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St.3d 89, 107-108 (1997), State v. Johnson, 10th Dist.	1	2
State v. Staffordgreen ohioctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025For a statement made after an event to be admissible under this exception, “it must stand very close in time to the event.” Smith, 2019-Ohio-3257, at ¶ 20 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Stafford, 2004-Ohio-3893, ¶ 66 (1st Dist.). {¶24} The admissibility of these statements under the present sense impression exception meets the same fate as it does under the excited utterance exception.	1	1
State v. Smithgreen · 2019 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025For a statement made after an event to be admissible under this exception, “it must stand very close in time to the event.” Smith, 2019-Ohio-3257, at ¶ 20 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Stafford, 2004-Ohio-3893, ¶ 66 (1st Dist.). {¶24} The admissibility of these statements under the present sense impression exception meets the same fate as it does under the excited utterance exception.	1	1
State v. Kapitulagreen ohioctapp · 2020 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Clermont No. CA2020-03-10, 2020-Ohio-6664, ¶ 16 ("the alleged hearsay falls within the present sense impression exception because [the declarant] was communicating his observations of appellant over the phone to [the testifying witness] as -9- Clermont CA2023-08-058 it occurred").	1	1
State v. Alexandergreen ohioctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023Hamilton No. C-110035, 2012-Ohio-460, ¶ 18 (concluding that the exception applied when “[declarant] had no time to reflect or to fabricate the substance of the conversation”). {¶63} Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the text messages as inadmissible hearsay because the text messages were not delivered within a short time from the occurrence of the event.	1	1
State v. Butchergreen ohioctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020Portage No. 2008-P-0063, 2009-Ohio-4101 , ¶58, quoting State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295, 303 (1993) (emphasis deleted); see also State v. Butcher, 170 Ohio App.3d 52 , 2007-Ohio-118 , ¶31 (11th Dist.). {¶27} There is also a present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, which is limited to “describing or explaining” the event.	1	1
State v. Butcher, Unpublished Decision (1-12-2007)green ohioctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020Portage No. 2008-P-0063, 2009-Ohio-4101 , ¶58, quoting State v. Taylor, 66 Ohio St.3d 295, 303 (1993) (emphasis deleted); see also State v. Butcher, 170 Ohio App.3d 52 , 2007-Ohio-118 , ¶31 (11th Dist.). {¶27} There is also a present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, which is limited to “describing or explaining” the event.	1	1
State v. Cartergreen ohioctapp · 2017 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018See Carter, supra. We therefore find the hearsay statements are not admissible under Evid.R. 803(1), and the trial court erred in admitting the hearsay statements. {¶ 28} Nevertheless, any error caused by the admission of the first instance of hearsay was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt.	1	1
State v. Leonardgreen ohio · 2004 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009See State v. Leonard , 104 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2004-Ohio-6235 , ¶ 101 . ¶{34} There are also the present sense impression exception of Evid.	1	1
State v. Millergreen ohio · 2002 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007See State v. Miller , 96 Ohio St.3d 384 , 2002-Ohio-4931 , at ¶ 45 , citing State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21-22 . {¶ 32} Defendant's contention that Medhin's statements lacked credibility because Ellos did not believe him is unavailing.	1	1
State v. Apanovitchgreen ohio · 1987 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007See State v. Miller , 96 Ohio St.3d 384 , 2002-Ohio-4931 , at ¶ 45 , citing State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21-22 . {¶ 32} Defendant's contention that Medhin's statements lacked credibility because Ellos did not believe him is unavailing.	1	1
State v. Millergreen ohio · 2002 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007See State v. Miller , 96 Ohio St.3d 384 , 2002-Ohio-4931 , at ¶ 45 , citing State v. Apanovitch (1987), 33 Ohio St.3d 19 , 21-22 . {¶ 32} Defendant's contention that Medhin's statements lacked credibility because Ellos did not believe him is unavailing.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Cleveland v. Myles green ohioctapp · 2022 2 sentences 2024Cuyahoga No. 111309, 2022-Ohio-4504, ¶ 25 , quoting State v. Martin, 2016-Ohio-225 , 57 N.E.3d 411 , ¶ 59 (5th Dist.) (“911 calls are generally admissible as excited utterances or under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.”). 2023Cuyahoga No. 111309, 2022-Ohio-4504, ¶ 25 , quoting State v. Martin, 2016- Ohio-225, 57 N.E.3d 411 , ¶ 59 (5th Dist.). {¶53} “Evid.R. 803(1) defines the present sense impression as ‘[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter unless circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.’” Id. at ¶ 26, quoting Evid.R. 803(1).	2	2023–2024
State v. Dixon green ohioctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2024This rule assumes that “statements or perceptions, describing the event and uttered in close temporal -15- Case No. 9-23-65 proximity to the event, bear a high degree of trustworthiness.” State v. Dixon, 152 Ohio App.3d 760 , 2003-Ohio-2550 , ¶ 12, quoting Cox v. Oliver Machinery Co., 41 Ohio App.3d 28, 35 , 534 N.E.2d 855 (12th Dist.1987). {¶34} Under the present sense impression exception, “‘[t]he key to the statement’s trustworthiness is the spontaneity of the statement, either contemporaneous with the event or immediately thereafter. 2024This rule assumes that “statements or perceptions, describing the event and uttered in close temporal -15- Case No. 9-23-65 proximity to the event, bear a high degree of trustworthiness.” State v. Dixon, 152 Ohio App.3d 760 , 2003-Ohio-2550 , ¶ 12, quoting Cox v. Oliver Machinery Co., 41 Ohio App.3d 28, 35 , 534 N.E.2d 855 (12th Dist.1987). {¶34} Under the present sense impression exception, “‘[t]he key to the statement’s trustworthiness is the spontaneity of the statement, either contemporaneous with the event or immediately thereafter.	2	2016–2024
State v. May green ohioctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2023Logan No. 8-11-19, 2012-Ohio-5128, ¶ 42 . 2023“Some courts have found that the present sense impression exception applies even where the 911 call is made up to an hour after the event perceived.” Id., citing State v. Travis, 165 Ohio App.3d 626 , 2006-Ohio-787 , 847 N.E.2d 1237, ¶ 37 (2d Dist.). {¶55} In this case, the surveillance video demonstrates that the robbery of Hernandez occurred at approximately 4:20 p.m.	2	2022–2023
State v. Stewart neutral ohioctapp · 2018 1 sentence 2025State v. Stewart, 2018-Ohio-3517 (6th Dist.).	1	2025–2025
Taylor v. Industrial Commission neutral ohioctapp · 1920 1 sentence 2024Id. at 265 . {¶ 31} Appellant also argued that James Wesolowski’s statement would be admissible as a present sense impression exception to hearsay under Evid.	1	2024–2024
State v. Barnes green ohio · 2002 2 sentences 2023State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002). {¶52} “‘911 calls are generally admissible as excited utterances or under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.’” Cleveland v. Myles, 8th Dist. 2023State v. Barnes, 94 Ohio St.3d 21, 27 , 759 N.E.2d 1240 (2002). {¶52} “‘911 calls are generally admissible as excited utterances or under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.’” Cleveland v. Myles, 8th Dist.	1	2023–2023
State v. Ellington, Unpublished Decision (9-23-2004) green ohioctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2017Cuyahoga No. 84014, 2004-Ohio-5036 , 2004 WL 2340287 , ¶ 10. {¶ 107} In keeping with this rationale, 911 calls are usually admissible under the excited utterance or the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.	1	2017–2017
State v. Smith green ohio · 1997 1 sentence 2016Navarrete v. California, U.S. , 134 S.Ct. 1680 , 1689, 188 L.Ed. 680 (2014); State v. Smith, 80 Ohio St. 3d 89, 107-108 , 1997-Ohio-355 , 684 N.E.2d 668 ; State v. Johnson, 10th Dist.	1	2016–2016
State v. Duncan green ohio · 1978 2 sentences 2016Montgomery No. 25151, 2013-Ohio-1694, ¶ 17 , quoting State v. Duncan, 53 Ohio St.2d 215 , 373 N.E.2d 1234 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 17} We have held that “911 calls are usually admissible under the excited utterance or the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.” Norris, 2d Dist. 2016Montgomery No. 25151, 2013-Ohio-1694, ¶ 17 , quoting State v. Duncan, 53 Ohio St.2d 215 , 373 N.E.2d 1234 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 17} We have held that “911 calls are usually admissible under the excited utterance or the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.” Norris, 2d Dist.	1	2016–2016
State v. King neutral ohioctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2016Montgomery No. 25151, 2013-Ohio-1694, ¶ 17 , quoting State v. Duncan, 53 Ohio St.2d 215 , 373 N.E.2d 1234 (1978), paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 17} We have held that “911 calls are usually admissible under the excited utterance or the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.” Norris, 2d Dist.	1	2016–2016
United States v. Lentz green vaed · 2002 1 sentence 2011Neal v. Johnson, Cuyahoga App. No. 83124, 2004-Ohio-743 ; United States v. Lentz (E.D.Va.2002), 282 F.Supp.2d 399, 410 . {¶ 15} “The key to the statement’s trustworthiness is the spontaneity of the statement, either contemporaneous with the event or immediately thereafter.	1	2011–2011
Neal v. Johnson, Unpublished Decision (2-19-2004) neutral ohioctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2011Neal v. Johnson, Cuyahoga App. No. 83124, 2004-Ohio-743 ; United States v. Lentz (E.D.Va.2002), 282 F.Supp.2d 399, 410 . {¶ 15} “The key to the statement’s trustworthiness is the spontaneity of the statement, either contemporaneous with the event or immediately thereafter.	1	2011–2011
State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (1-21-2005) green ohioctapp · 2005	1	2006–2006
State v. Madrigal green ohio · 2000	1	2003–2003
White v. Illinois green scotus · 1992	1	2002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.25 (9) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.11 (7) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.02 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.22 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.145 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2901.01 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 118 (1981–2026) PA 35 (1979–2026) TX 33 (1993–2024) OH 28 (2002–2025) MD 12 (1985–2024) NC 12 (1986–2020) LA 11 (1999–2024) MI 9 (1985–2022) NM 9 (1984–2017) DC 8 (1979–2026) NJ 8 (2008–2022) WV 7 (1987–2026) IN 7 (2008–2020) WY 6 (2003–2025) IL 5 (1997–2016) VA 5 (1987–2010) IA 4 (2018–2022) MO 4 (1991–2015) SC 4 (1998–2019) DE 4 (2001–2021) GA 3 (2018–2022) ND 3 (1995–2017) AZ 3 (1989–2024) NV 2 (2019–2019) AK 2 (2012–2012) UT 2 (2008–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check