Ohio Supreme Court· 2/13/1980

State v. Thomas

Citations

61 Ohio St. 2d 223
400 N.E.2d 401

How courts have described this case

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

noting that testimony offered to explain investigative activities was not hearsay
finding the officers’ testimony on their receipt of a tip about a gambling operation in the town was not hearsay as it was offered to explain the subsequent investigative activities of the witnesses and was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
finding the officers’ testimony on their receipt of a tip about a gambling operation in the town was not hearsay as it was offered to explain the subsequent investigative activities of the witnesses and was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
“extrajudicial statements made by an out-of-court declarant are properly admissible to explain the actions of a witness to whom the statement was directed”
“The testimony at issue was offered to explain the subsequent investigatory activities of the witnesses. It was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.”
“[T]he Ohio Supreme Court recognized that out of court statements are admissible, ‘to explain the actions of a witness to whom the statement was directed.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

149 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.