Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

July 7, 2006

One of the guys in the office was in trial this week, and encountered what I call the "police officer exception" to the hearsay rule.  You know how it works:
Q.  Officer, what did you do when you arrived at the scene?

A.  The neighbor, Mrs. Shack, came to me and told me --     

      DEFENSE COUNSEL:  Objection.

      THE COURT:  Sustained.  Rephrase the question.

Q.  What did you learn as a result of your interrogation of Ms. Shack, officer?

A.  I learned that the that she had been present during the altercation between the victim and the defendant, and that -- 

       DEFENSE COUNSEL:  Objection, your Honor!

       THE COURT:  He's not saying what she said. He's saying what he learned. Overruled. Proceed.

A.  I learned from Mrs. Shack that the defendant had grabbed the victim and thrown her down.
It's not always that flagrant, but an unfortunately surprising number of judges have no problems with police officers testifying what they "learned as a result of their investigation," even when what they "learned" is obviously hearsay.

So there are a few cases you might want to carry in your trial folder.  One is a case out of the 8th District from over 50 years ago, City of Cleveland v. Coleman, 72 Ohio Law Abs. 94, a hit-and-run prosecution where the court held that a police officer's testimony that he "learned" of the defendant's license plate was inadmissible hearsay. Of much more recent vintage is Bryans v. English Nanny and Governess School, Inc., 117 Ohio App.3d 303; in that one, a discrimination suit plaintiff's testimony that she learned from other students that employment positions were available to them, but not to her, was held inadmissible.

Another good case is one from the 10th District in 1990, State v. Cassidy, 1990 WL 20083, which has a real nice quote:

Although Officer Morris did not relate specifically what Peer told him, the effect was the same. In his testimony, Morris stated that as a result of talking with Peer, he arrested defendant. The logical conclusion of this testimony is that Peer told Morris that defendant was somehow involved in the murder of her husband.  The result was that in an 'indirect' fashion, hearsay evidence was admitted.

You might also acquaint the trial judge with the Crawford rule on hearsay -- and I keep meaning to do a post on that -- which means that testimony along these lines will be a violation of the Confrontation Clause, and then you get into that nasty stuff about the state having to show that the error's harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  Should do the trick.

By the way, in case anyone thinks I'm exaggerating the problem, the testimony I had above wasn't from my friend's trial.  It's taken from an actual transcript in an appeal I handled a few years back.  It's the one I talked about earlier, where I got punked on the issue of severance of trial.  I raised the hearsay argument, too, but this was pre-Crawford, so the court blew me away on that one by holding it was harmless error.
I think they did put something in the opinion about me having worn a nice tie for oral argument, so that made me feel better.

Search

Recent Entries

  • April 26, 2017
    MIA
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech