constitutionally compelled rule in Ohio

2008We disagree. {¶ 16} In Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 , the United States Supreme Court held that testimonial statements of a witness who does not appear at trial may not be admitted or used against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. {¶ 17} Appellant contends the out-of-court statements of the confidential informant offered by the police officer at the suppression hearing are "testimonial" under Crawford ; however, "[t]he right to confrontation, w

2008Ohio courts have held, however, that "[t]he right to confrontation, which includes the right to physically face and cross-examine witnesses, is not a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial proceedings." State v. Dunn , Washington App. No. 03CA47, 2004-Ohio-2883 , ¶ 11 (declining to order, on confrontation grounds, the disclosure of the identities of confidential informants), citing Pennsylvania v. Ritchie (1987), 480 U.S. 39 , 52-53 .

2024Under State v. Williams, 4 Ohio St.3d 74 (1983), “the identity of an informant must be revealed to a criminal defendant when the testimony of the informant is vital to establishing an element of the crime or would be helpful or beneficial to the accused in preparing or making a defense to criminal charges.” But Williams only compels such disclosure prior to a trial, not to a suppression hearing, as “the right to confrontation, which includes the right to physically face and cross- No. 23AP-359 9 examine witnesses, is not a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial proceedings.” State v. Jord

2017State v. Morgan , 2014-Ohio-2472 , 14 N.E.3d 452 , ¶ 45. {¶ 25} "The right to confrontation, which includes the right to physically face and cross-examine witnesses, is not a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial proceedings." State v. McKenzie , 10th Dist.

2008We disagree. {¶ 16} In Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 , the United States Supreme Court held that testimonial statements of a witness who does not appear at trial may not be admitted or used against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. {¶ 17} Appellant contends the out-of-court statements of the confidential informant offered by the police officer at the suppression hearing are "testimonial" under Crawford ; however, "[t]he right to confrontation, w

2008We disagree. {¶ 16} In Crawford v. Washington (2004), 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 , the United States Supreme Court held that testimonial statements of a witness who does not appear at trial may not be admitted or used against a criminal defendant unless the declarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. {¶ 17} Appellant contends the out-of-court statements of the confidential informant offered by the police officer at the suppression hearing are "testimonial" under Crawford ; however, "[t]he right to confrontation, w

2008Accord State v. Miller , Guernsey App. No. 07 CA 11, 2008-Ohio-100 , ¶ 16-17 (finding no confrontation violation where police officer's suppression hearing testimony included out-of-court statements by a confidential informant); State v. Massie , Ottawa App. No. OT-04-007, 2005-Ohio-1678 , ¶ 16 (concluding that Crawford did not preclude officer's suppression hearing testimony concerning information provided to a police radio dispatcher).