Official reports made by officers of this state, or certified copies of the same, on a matter within the scope of their duty as defined by statute, shall, in so far as relevant, be admitted as evidence of the matters stated therein.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1955–2024 · leading case: State v. Ward, 474 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio 1984).
State v. Ward, 474 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio 1984). · cites it 10דBefore this court’s adoption of the Ohio Rules of Evidence in July 1980, the question at bar was governed by R.C. 2317.42 and our decision in State v.”
State v. Morant, 2021-Ohio-3160. · cites it 2דIn the table of contents, he lists his fifth proposition of law as “Reports or certified copies to be admitted under R.C. 2317.42,” his seventh proposition of law as “Requirement of authentication or identification Evid.”
State v. Colvin, 249 N.E.2d 784 (Ohio 1969). · cites it 10דFirst, that the statutory exception to the hearsay rule contained in Section 2317.42, Revised Code (Official Reports as Evidence Act), is not applicable because the letter is not an official report and was not made by an officer of this state.”
State v. Luhrs, 591 N.E.2d 1251 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1990). · cites it 2דAssignment of Error VII "The trial court committed error prejudicial to defendant by admitting copies of public records into evidence contrary to the mandates of Evidence Rule 902, Evidence Rule 1002, Ohio Revised Code Section 2317.42, Criminal Rule 27, and Civil Rule 44.”
State v. Emch, 453 N.E.2d 1270 (Ohio Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4ד143 are admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under R.C. 2317.42.” Thus, in the absence of testimony by the calibrating officer, such documents were admissible as official documents under R.”
State v. Walker, 374 N.E.2d 132 (Ohio 1978). · cites it 2ד], 699 Section 1672), enacted Section 2317.42, Revised Code, thereby greatly facilitating the production of evidence with little chance of it being untrustworthy.”
State v. Schell, 469 N.E.2d 999 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1984). · cites it 2דThe court held that certified copies of the log book would qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule under the official report rule set forth in R.C. 2317.42. Walker, supra, was decided prior to the adoption of the Ohio Rules of Evidence.”
Maloney v. Maloney, 516 N.E.2d 251 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1986). “Additionally, R.C. 2317.42 provides that: “Official reports made by officers of this state, or certified copies of the same, on a matter within the scope of their duty as defined by statute, shall, in so far as relevant, be admitted as evidence of the matters stated therein.”
Pruden-Wilgus v. Wilgus, 545 N.E.2d 647 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1988). “(R.C. 2317.42, Evid. R. 201, and Civ. R. 44.”
State v. Smith, 2012-Ohio-532, 968 N.E.2d 625. “Smith argues that the documents were not certified and there was no testimony by any custodian as to the records’ maintenance, accuracy, and authenticity as public records.”
In re S.s., H.s., A.S., 2018-Ohio-2279. “Because Mother has failed to demonstrate any error in the admission and consideration of the contents of the dependency case files of her older children, her first assignment of error is overruled. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II THE TRIAL COURT’S ACTION IN TAKING JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE…”
Beamer v. Beamer, 244 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2דTo the extent that it constituted the direct observation of the investigator, it would not appear to fall within the type of report contemplated by the Official Reports as Evidence Act (Section 2317.42, Revised Code), as no particular official is designated to make the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.