While a victim of domestic violence was receiving medical care in an ambulance, she told police about the attack.

While a victim of domestic violence was receiving medical care in an ambulance, she told police about the attack.

The statements of a domestic violence victim to a police officer were testimonial because they were not given to assist the officer in responding to an ongoing emergency, but rather were given to further the officer’s investigation of a crime that had already occurred, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

The Supreme Court explained that when a witness’s testimonial statement is admitted into evidence in a case, it violates the defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation if the defendant does not have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

In a divided opinion, the Court found that the statements by the victim, B.B., to a police officer and admitted at Garry Smith’s criminal trial violated his right to confrontation. However, the statements B.B. made to EMTs were not testimonial because those statements were given for the purpose of receiving medical care, the Court concluded.

B.B.’s statements were captured on March 21, 2020, by a police officer’s body camera. Officers responded to a 911 call that a woman had been assaulted. EMTs were on the scene when the officers arrived. The officers were told by B.B.’s family member that B.B. had shown up at her house. One of the officers spoke to B.B. while she was being treated by the EMTs in the back of the ambulance.

In response to the officer’s questions, B.B. said that her fiancé, Smith, had beaten her up and ripped out her hair. B.B.’s face and her eye were swollen, and her clothing was disheveled, ripped, and dirty. B.B. told police that she and Smith had an argument outside of a car down the street and, afterward, Smith drove away. She said she was five months pregnant. She also explained that the two of them had been drinking, Smith was very intoxicated, and he threatened to shoot and kill her.

B.B. failed to appear at Smith’s trial and did not testify against him. Smith asserted that B.B.’s statements on the bodycam video were hearsay and violated his constitutional right to confrontation because he would be unable to cross-examine B.B. The trial court disagreed, finding that the statements on the video were admissible under an exception to the hearsay prohibition. Smith was found guilty on two counts of domestic violence and a specification because B.B. was a pregnant victim.

The Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed the decision, finding that all of B.B.’s statements recorded on the bodycam video after the March 2020 incident violated Smith’s right to confront witnesses. The Eighth District vacated Smith’s convictions related to this incident, and returned the case to the trial court for a new trial.

The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office appealed to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case.

Supreme Court Considers Primary Purpose of Interrogation
In the majority opinion, Justice Patrick F. Fischer explained that the Court’s analysis requires looking at the situation from both the police officer’s and B.B.’s perspectives. The Court must determine whether the primary purpose of the officer’s interrogation of B.B. was to enable police to respond to an ongoing emergency. 

After B.B. confirmed she was assaulted by her fiancé, later identified as Smith, the officer did not ask questions to assess if Smith was potentially a threat to himself or the safety of others, the opinion noted. Justice Fischer wrote that the officer had no need to eliminate Smith as an ongoing threat to B.B., because she was safe with police and the EMTs in the ambulance. 

The opinion also pointed out that B.B. did not call for help or provide police with information conveying that Smith was a continued threat to her or others. The facts demonstrate that B.B.’s purpose in her responses was not to assist the officers with an ongoing emergency but, rather, to tell her account of the incident, the opinion explained.

“[T]he primary purpose of the interrogation was to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution of B.B.’s assailant,” Justice Fischer wrote.

The majority concluded that B.B.’s statements to the police officer on the video were testimonial in nature, and their admission into evidence at Smith’s trial violated his right to confront witnesses. The Eighth District incorrectly found that all of her statements on the video had to be excluded, the opinion stated. The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth District’s decision.

However, the Court found that B.B.’s bodycam statements to the EMTs were nontestimonial because the purpose was to receive medical care. The admission of those statements at trial did not violate Smith’s confrontation rights, the opinion explained. The Court remanded the case to the appeals court to determine whether any of B.B.’s responses to EMT questions were improperly admitted because they were hearsay and to address Smith’s other legal arguments related to the incident.

Justices Michael P. Donnelly, Melody Stewart, and Jennifer Brunner joined Justice Fischer’s opinion.

Whether There Was an Emergency Initially Unclear, Partial Dissent Argues
In an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Joseph T. Deters agreed with the majority that B.B.’s statements to the EMTs were nontestimonial and that the Eighth District must determine whether those statements were inadmissible hearsay.

However, Justice Deters wrote, the majority mistakenly relied on hindsight in determining whether B.B.’s statements to the officer were testimonial. Instead, the Court’s focus should have centered on what was known by the officer at the time of the questioning. Justice Deters noted it was only after the police conducted its preliminary investigation that officers knew there was no ongoing emergency while B.B. was being questioned in the ambulance. The police could not have become aware of the nature of the emergency until the officer ascertained from B.B. that her assailant had left the area, he stated. 

“I would conclude that up to that point, B.B.’s statements captured by the officer’s body camera were nontestimonial,” Justice Deters wrote.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice R. Patrick DeWine joined Justice Deters’ opinion.

2023-1289. State v. Smith, Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5745.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.