State v. Wilcox

Citations

• 2023 Ohio 2940

Syllabus

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CRIMINAL – CONFRONTATION CLAUSE – EVIDENCE – SELF-DEFENSE – COUNSEL: The trial court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence a video containing testimonial statements of a nontestifying witness recorded on a police officer's body-worn camera in violation of the Confrontation Clause. [But see DISSENT: The trial court did not err in allowing statements by the victim's girlfriend to a police officer into evidence when they were nontestimonial because they were excited utterances made minutes after the startling event, when the situation was still fluid, the officer's questions were not leading and were not made during a structured police interview, and the victim's girlfriend was still under the stress of excitement caused by the shooting.] The trial court did not err in admitting a 15-second video recorded by a witness on her cell phone where the statements it contained were not testimonial. The appellate court views a self-defense claim on weight-of-the-evidence grounds. See State v. Messenger, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4562, ¶ 27. Defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel where he cannot demonstrate prejudice.