State v. Magee
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 2016
Syllabus
Mayle - Confrontation clause is not violated where officer testifies to statements he heard from confidential informant and defendant on a recorded controlled drug buy. Officer's identification of defendant as the seller of drugs is not hearsay and does not violate the confrontation clause where the testimony is made in person at the trial. Trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to object to testimony that is not hearsay and does not violate the confrontation clause.
Judges: Mayle
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 14,756×
- Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2006-06-19· cited 4,179×
- Coy v. IowaSupreme Court· 1988-06-29· cited 1,295×
- State v. McKelton (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-09-13· cited 457×
- State v. JonesOhio Supreme Court· 2012-12-06· cited 209×
- State v. ArnoldOhio Supreme Court· 2010-06-17· cited 197×
- State v. RicksOhio Supreme Court· 2013-09-05· cited 102×
- Ohio v. MadisonOhio Supreme Court· 1980-12-30· cited 78×
- State v. CarterOhio Supreme Court· 2024-04-04· cited 24×
- State v. MooreOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-09-13· cited 20×
- State v. GilmerOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-03-28· cited 12×
- State v. StevensonOhio Court of Appeals· 2023-12-29· cited 9×
- State v. PeabodyOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-01-19· cited 6×
- State v. WardOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-03-12· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.