Ohio v. Clark

Ohio v. Clark

Argued March 2, 2015
Decided June 18, 2015
Full case name Ohio v. Darius Clark
Citations

576 U.S. ___ (more)

137 Ohio St. 3d 346, 2013–Ohio–4731, 999 N. E. 2d 592
Prior history Defendant convicted; reversed, No. 96207, 2011 WL 6780456 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2011); reversed, 999 N.E.2d 592 (Ohio 2013); rehearing denied, 999 N.E.2d 698 (Ohio 2013); certiorari granted, 575 U.S. ___ (2015)
Subsequent history None
Holding
The use at trial of out of court statements made by a child did not violate the Confrontation Clause, when the child did not testify, because the statements were not made with the primary purpose of creating evidence.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Case opinions
Majority Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Concurrence Scalia, joined by Ginsburg
Concurrence Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VI

Ohio v. Darius Clark, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), is United States Supreme Court case opinion that narrowed the standard set in Crawford v. Washington for determining whether hearsay statements in criminal cases are permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court of Ohio on June 18, 2015. The court held that the out-of-court statements were admissible because the primary purpose was not to create evidence.

See also

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 10/13/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.