Legal Opinion
State v. Keairns
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 29, 1984No. 82-1808PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJ. P. Celebrezze, J.
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the hearsay rule both restrict the use of statements of a person not present at trial. The hearsay rule, however, is subject to a sea of exceptions. This court is again confronted with the task of mapping these relatively uncharted waters and determining what boundaries the Confrontation Clause imposes upon these exceptions.
Huff’s testimony was admitted under Evid. R. 804(B)(1), which allows the use of former testimony when the declarant is unavailable.1 “Unavailability” is defined as including situations in which the declarant “is absent…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Dutton v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Barber v. PageSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- State v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 2012
- State v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. JesterOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. JacksonOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
- State v. Ford, 07ap-803 (8-28-2008)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.