8 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2026 7 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. Issagreen2 sentences2024Cuyahoga No. 99485, 2014-Ohio-1228, ¶ 29 ; see also State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 60 , 752 N.E.2d 904 (2001). 2024Cuyahoga No. 99485, 2014-Ohio-1228, ¶ 29 ; see also State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 60 , 752 N.E.2d 904 (2001). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Kilbanegreen2 sentences2026State v. Kilbane, 2014-Ohio-1228, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.). 2026“Whenever the state seeks to introduce hearsay into a criminal proceeding, the court must determine not only whether the evidence fits within an exception, but also whether the introduction of such evidence offends an accused’s right to confront witnesses against him.” State v. Powell, 2019-Ohio- 4345, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Kilbane, 2014-Ohio-1228, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Powellgreen2 sentences2026That is, “[w]henever the state seeks to introduce hearsay into a criminal proceeding, the court must determine not only whether the evidence fits within an exception, but also whether the introduction of such evidence offends an accused’s right to confront witnesses against him.” State v. Powell, 2019-Ohio-4345, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.). 2024A. [The victim] stated that he was shot at.” The state’s evidentiary rules, however, are only applicable if the statement does not violate the Confrontation Clause: “Whenever the state seeks to introduce hearsay into a criminal proceeding, the court must determine not only whether the evidence fits within an exception, but also whether the introduction of such evidence offends an accused’s right to confront witnesses against him.” State v. Powell, 2019-Ohio-4345 , 134 N.E.3d 1270 , ¶ 38 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Kilbane, 8th Dist. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Boycegreen1 sentence2024R. 801(C). “[W]henever the state seeks to introduce hearsay into evidence in a criminal proceeding, the court must determine not only whether the evidence fits within an exception to the hearsay rule, but also whether the introduction of such evidence offends an accused’s right to confront witnesses against him.” State v. Boyce, 2024-Ohio-464, ¶9 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Kilbane, 2014-Ohio- 1228, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.). 22. {¶ 61} The United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), held that the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of testimonial statements of a wit | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2023Cuyahoga No. 99485, 2014-Ohio-1228, ¶ 29 ; see also Smith, 2019-Ohio-3257 , 141 N.E.3d 590 , at ¶ 10 (“Although the rule against hearsay and the Confrontation Clause are ‘generally designed to protect similar ideals, * * * the Confrontation Clause may bar the admission of evidence that would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule.”’), quoting State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 60 , 752 N.E.2d 904 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2024R. 801(C). “[W]henever the state seeks to introduce hearsay into evidence in a criminal proceeding, the court must determine not only whether the evidence fits within an exception to the hearsay rule, but also whether the introduction of such evidence offends an accused’s right to confront witnesses against him.” State v. Boyce, 2024-Ohio-464, ¶9 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Kilbane, 2014-Ohio- 1228, ¶ 29 (8th Dist.). 22. {¶ 61} The United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), held that the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of testimonial statements of a wit 2014Whenever the state seeks to introduce hearsay into a criminal proceeding, the court must determine not only whether the evidence fits within an exception, but also whether the introduction of such evidence offends an accused’s right to confront witnesses against him.1 In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Claus | 2 | 2014–2024 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2024In Williams, this court stated, “The state’s evidentiary rules, however, are only applicable if the statement does not violate the Confrontation Clause.” “Whenever the state seeks to introduce hearsay into a criminal proceeding, the court must determine not only whether the evidence fits within an exception, but also whether the introduction of such evidence offends an accused’s right to confront witnesses against him.” Id., quoting State v. Powell, 2019-Ohio-4345 , 134 N.E.3d 1270 , ¶ 38 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Kilbane, 8th Dist. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Yarborough v. Gentry
green
1 sentence2014Whenever the state seeks to introduce hearsay into a criminal proceeding, the court must determine not only whether the evidence fits within an exception, but also whether the introduction of such evidence offends an accused’s right to confront witnesses against him.1 In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Claus | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.