State ex rel. Hitchcock v. Harvey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the admission of a hearsay statement was harmless because the “contents of the statement were largely cumulative of the testimony of other witnesses at . . . trial”
• holding harmless error in admitting defendant’s prior conviction, in light of remaining properly introduced evidence of defendant’s guilt
• holding that a criminal defendant’s successful motion to waive a special venire -13- “was the action made by the accused which necessitated the period of delay, during which the state sought a writ of mandamus reversing the trial court’s decision granting that motion”
• finding “[a] statement is not hearsay if it is admitted to prove that the declarant made it, rather than to prove the truth of its contents”
• finding “[a] statement is not hearsay if it is admitted to prove that the declarant made it, rather than to prove the truth of its contents”
• finding the admission of hearsay that was cumulative to other admitted 1 We note that Brown’s brief arguments relating to the Confrontation Clause are inapplicable because E.M. testified at trial. State v. Keenan, 81 Ohio St.3d 133, 142, 689 N.E.2d 929 (1998

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).