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.
19 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 2010–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Giles v. Californiagreen2 sentences2025State v. Harvey, 2022-Ohio-4650, ¶ 42 (6th Dist.), citing McKelton at ¶ 97. {¶ 89} Under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, unconfronted testimony is admissible “ ‘only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying’ about an earlier offense.” (Emphasis in original.) McKelton at ¶ 103, quoting Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 366 (2008). 2019Cuyahoga No. 106462, 2018-Ohio-3671 , citing Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008). -8- Case No. 8-18-40 {¶15} Ohio Rule of Evidence 804(B)(6) codifies the forfeiture by wrongdoing rule and reads: (B) Hearsay Exceptions. | 5 | 9 |
Davis v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025The forfeiture by wrongdoing exception applies to defendants who “seek to undermine the judicial process by procuring or coercing silence from witnesses.” Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006). 2024Logan No. 8-18-40, 2019- Ohio-2070, at ¶ 14. {¶61} With regard to the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception, “when defendants seek to undermine the judicial process by procuring or coercing silence from witnesses and victims, the Sixth Amendment does not require courts to acquiesce.” Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 , 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 . | 5 | 8 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025Under this exception, “an accused has forfeited his confrontation right where the accused’s own misconduct is responsible for a witness’s unavailability.” State v. Hand, 2006-Ohio-18 , ¶ 105, citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 62 (2004). 2019The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, however, “‘extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.’” Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006), quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 62 (2004). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Harveygreen2 sentences2025State v. Harvey, 2022-Ohio-4650, ¶ 42 (6th Dist.), citing McKelton at ¶ 97. {¶ 89} Under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, unconfronted testimony is admissible “ ‘only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying’ about an earlier offense.” (Emphasis in original.) McKelton at ¶ 103, quoting Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 366 (2008). 2025State v. Harvey, 2022-Ohio-4650, ¶ 42 (6th Dist.), citing McKelton at ¶ 97. {¶ 89} Under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, unconfronted testimony is admissible “ ‘only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying’ about an earlier offense.” (Emphasis in original.) McKelton at ¶ 103, quoting Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 366 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Robert L. Steele v. Terry D. Taylor, Supt., Owen J. Kilbane v. Ronald C. Marshall, Supt., Martin A. Kilbane v. Ronald C. Marshall, Supt.green1 sentence2022First, based on the prosecutor’s reciting the nature of the phone calls between Smith and Mast and defense counsel’s agreeing to their characterization, it is evident Smith engaged in wrongdoing when he “aggressively confront[ed]” Mast about her testimony and about the need for her to keep her testimony “simple and plead the Fifth with regards to that.” See Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1193, 1201 (6th Cir.1982) (stating that “[w]rongful conduct” has been held to include “a defendant’s direction to a witness to exercise the Fifth Amendment privilege”); but see 2001 Staff Notes, Evid.R. 804(B)(6) | 1 | 1 |
State v. Keairnsgreen1 sentence2022In criminal cases, “[a] witness is not considered unavailable unless the prosecution has made reasonable efforts in good faith to secure his presence at trial.” State v. Keairns, 9 Ohio St.3d 228, 230 (1984), citing Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 (1968). “‘The lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness * * * is a question of reasonableness.’” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980),4 quoting California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 189 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 (1970), fn. 22 (Harlan, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2022No. 15CA3, 2016-Ohio-733, ¶ 34 , quoting State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436, 449 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
In re B.W.green2 sentences2019No. 17 MA 0071, 2017-Ohio-9220 , 103 N.E.3d 266, ¶ 37 (confrontation clause is a trial right). {¶12} Appellant complains the declarant provided a “misty” reference to “they say” when disclosing the defendants threatened to kill him. 2019No. 17 MA 0071, 2017-Ohio-9220 , 103 N.E.3d 266, ¶ 37 (confrontation clause is a trial right). {¶12} Appellant complains the declarant provided a “misty” reference to “they say” when disclosing the defendants threatened to kill him. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ashgreen2 sentences2019No. 16 MO 0002, 2018-Ohio-1139 , 108 N.E.3d 1115, ¶ 88 (in determining the defendant’s motivation to evaluate admissibility under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception, the court considers all of the evidence presented at the pretrial, including hearsay and other acts evidence, without regard to its ultimate admissibility); In the Matter of B.W., 7th Dist. 2019No. 16 MO 0002, 2018-Ohio-1139 , 108 N.E.3d 1115, ¶ 88 (in determining the defendant’s motivation to evaluate admissibility under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception, the court considers all of the evidence presented at the pretrial, including hearsay and other acts evidence, without regard to its ultimate admissibility); In the Matter of B.W., 7th Dist. | 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. McKelton (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2025Although the trial court admitted these statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception, Pecina claims that the trial court erred in doing so because there was no evidence to support that his purpose in murdering E.C. was to prevent her from testifying. {¶ 88} “Forfeiture by wrongdoing has long been recognized as an equitable exception to a defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.” State v. McKelton, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 96 . 2023Codified under Evid.R. 804(B)(6), the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing permits the state to use hearsay statements of an unavailable witness if the state can show, by a preponderance of the evidence: “(1) the defendant engaged in wrongdoing that caused the witness to be unavailable and (2) one purpose for the wrongdoing was to make the witness unavailable to testify.” Id. | 6 | 2018–2025 |
State v. Artis
green
2 sentences2024Logan No. 8-18-40, 2019-Ohio-2070, ¶ 16 , citing State v. Henderson, 7th Dist. 2022State v. Artis, 2019-Ohio-2070 , 137 N.E.3d 587 (3d. | 3 | 2022–2024 |
State v. Hand
green
2 sentences2019McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2016-Ohio-5735, at ¶ 96 , citing State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2010-Ohio-1017, ¶ 106 , and Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2006-Ohio-18 , at ¶ 84. 2018State v. Hand , 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2006-Ohio-18 , 840 N.E.2d 151 , ¶¶ 84, 87, 90. | 3 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Fry
green
2 sentences2025Codified at Evid.R. 804(B)(6), the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing permits the state to use hearsay statements of an unavailable witness if the state can show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that “ ‘(1) the defendant engaged in wrongdoing that caused the witness to be unavailable and (2) one purpose for the wrongdoing was to make the witness unavailable to testify.’ ” Bias at ¶ 59 , quoting McKelton at ¶ 96 , citing State v. Fry, 2010-Ohio-1017, ¶ 106 , and State v. Hand, 2006-Ohio-18 , ¶ 84. 2019McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261 , 2016-Ohio-5735, at ¶ 96 , citing State v. Fry, 125 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2010-Ohio-1017, ¶ 106 , and Hand, 107 Ohio St.3d 378 , 2006-Ohio-18 , at ¶ 84. | 2 | 2019–2025 |
State v. Dillion
green
1 sentence2025Fleming also argues the admission of the statement violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. {¶ 15} This issue was discussed recently in State v. Dillion, 2023-Ohio-777 (10th Dist.), wherein the court stated: A statement is impermissible hearsay when it is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Conway
green
1 sentence2024State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412 , 2006-Ohio-2815 , ¶ 62. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State ex rel. Doner v. Zody
green
2 sentences2023Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 , 2011-Ohio-6117, ¶ 54 . {¶ 39} The forfeiture by wrongdoing exception applies to defendants who "seek to undermine the judicial process by procuring or coercing silence from witnesses." Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006). 2023Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 , 2011-Ohio-6117, ¶ 54 . {¶ 39} The forfeiture by wrongdoing exception applies to defendants who "seek to undermine the judicial process by procuring or coercing silence from witnesses." Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 833 (2006). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2022In criminal cases, “[a] witness is not considered unavailable unless the prosecution has made reasonable efforts in good faith to secure his presence at trial.” State v. Keairns, 9 Ohio St.3d 228, 230 (1984), citing Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 (1968). “‘The lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness * * * is a question of reasonableness.’” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980),4 quoting California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 189 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 (1970), fn. 22 (Harlan, J., concurring). 2022In criminal cases, “[a] witness is not considered unavailable unless the prosecution has made reasonable efforts in good faith to secure his presence at trial.” State v. Keairns, 9 Ohio St.3d 228, 230 (1984), citing Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 (1968). “‘The lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness * * * is a question of reasonableness.’” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980),4 quoting California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 189 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 (1970), fn. 22 (Harlan, J., concurring). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Barber v. Page
green
2 sentences2022In criminal cases, “[a] witness is not considered unavailable unless the prosecution has made reasonable efforts in good faith to secure his presence at trial.” State v. Keairns, 9 Ohio St.3d 228, 230 (1984), citing Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 (1968). “‘The lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness * * * is a question of reasonableness.’” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980),4 quoting California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 189 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 (1970), fn. 22 (Harlan, J., concurring). 2022In criminal cases, “[a] witness is not considered unavailable unless the prosecution has made reasonable efforts in good faith to secure his presence at trial.” State v. Keairns, 9 Ohio St.3d 228, 230 (1984), citing Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 (1968). “‘The lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness * * * is a question of reasonableness.’” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980),4 quoting California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 189 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 (1970), fn. 22 (Harlan, J., concurring). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Iseli
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 665 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2022No. 15CA3, 2016-Ohio-733, ¶ 34 , quoting State v. Jackson, 92 Ohio St.3d 436, 449 (2001). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
California v. Green
red
2 sentences2022In criminal cases, “[a] witness is not considered unavailable unless the prosecution has made reasonable efforts in good faith to secure his presence at trial.” State v. Keairns, 9 Ohio St.3d 228, 230 (1984), citing Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 (1968). “‘The lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness * * * is a question of reasonableness.’” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980),4 quoting California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 189 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 (1970), fn. 22 (Harlan, J., concurring). 2022In criminal cases, “[a] witness is not considered unavailable unless the prosecution has made reasonable efforts in good faith to secure his presence at trial.” State v. Keairns, 9 Ohio St.3d 228, 230 (1984), citing Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 (1968). “‘The lengths to which the prosecution must go to produce a witness * * * is a question of reasonableness.’” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (1980),4 quoting California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 189 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 (1970), fn. 22 (Harlan, J., concurring). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Jackson, Unpublished Decision (5-14-2004)
green
1 sentence2022If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed." Id., citing Jackson at ¶ 11 , citing Strickland at 697 . {¶ 158} Appellant contends his trial counsel was ineffective in (1) failing to object to the trial judge presiding over the certification hearing, (2) failing to request that appellant be apprised of the judge's involvement in the certification hearing prior to the reaffirmance of his jury waiver, (3) failing to object to the prosecutor's use of leading questions during t | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Carter
green
1 sentence2019Cuyahoga No. 106462, 2018-Ohio-3671 , citing Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008). -8- Case No. 8-18-40 {¶15} Ohio Rule of Evidence 804(B)(6) codifies the forfeiture by wrongdoing rule and reads: (B) Hearsay Exceptions. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Brady
green
2 sentences2016The Ohio Supreme Court has defined an “abuse of discretion” as an “unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable use of discretion, or as a view or action that no conscientious judge could honestly have taken.” State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008-Ohio-4493 , 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 23 . {¶41} Almazan argues that Aura’s out-of-court statements that he allegedly raped her constitute inadmissible hearsay, which do not qualify under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception of Evid.R. 804(B)(6). 2016The Ohio Supreme Court has defined an “abuse of discretion” as an “unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable use of discretion, or as a view or action that no conscientious judge could honestly have taken.” State v. Brady, 119 Ohio St.3d 375 , 2008-Ohio-4493 , 894 N.E.2d 671, ¶ 23 . {¶41} Almazan argues that Aura’s out-of-court statements that he allegedly raped her constitute inadmissible hearsay, which do not qualify under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception of Evid.R. 804(B)(6). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.
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.