Jump to content

Ohio v. Clark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio v. Clark
Argued March 2, 2015
Decided June 18, 2015
Full case nameOhio v. Darius Clark
Docket no.13-1352
Citations576 U.S. 237 (more)
135 S. Ct. 2173; 192 L. Ed. 2d 306
Case history
PriorDefendant 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); cert. granted, 573 U.S. 991 (2014).
SubsequentNone
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 Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityAlito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
ConcurrenceScalia, joined by Ginsburg
ConcurrenceThomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. VI

Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (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. Citing a prior related case, Michigan v. Bryant, the Court formulated this test as one asking "whether a statement was given with the 'primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.'"

See also

[edit]
[edit]