State v. Wright

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 4460

Syllabus

Unlawful sexual conduct with a minor DNA hearsay Confrontation Clause medical diagnoses treatment investigatory relevant probative joinder sever simple and direct prejudice prosecutorial misconduct closing argument venue circumstantial evidence harmless reasonable doubt. No prejudicial joinder where the evidence is presented in an orderly fashion as to the separate offenses or victims without significant overlap or conflation of proof. The trial court did not err by permitting a treating nurse and an investigating detective to testify about certain statements made by the victim. Statements elicited during questioning by medical personnel for the purposes of medical diagnoses and treatment are a clearly defined, long-standing exception to the rules of hearsay and, therefore, are not barred by the Confrontation Clause. Law-enforcement officers may testify to out-of-court statements for the nonhearsay purpose of explaining the next investigatory step. Brief references to the victim's allegations of sexual assault were relevant to the jury's determination of whether defendant committed the offense of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. The state did not commit misconduct during its closing arguments such that Wright was deprived of a fair trial. The state presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish Cuyahoga County as the proper venue.