Opinion

State v. Hudson, Unpublished Decision (5-17-1999)

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
May 17, 1999
Status
Unpublished
On the bench
<italic>Gwin, P. J.</italic>
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

I concur in the disposition of assignments of error I, II and III, but disagree with one of the reasons used to support the disposition of assignment of error III. A summary of a statement made by Donald Cain, appellant's co-defendant, was admitted at trial through Jeffrey Corder, a fire inspector for the City of Coshocton and a member of the Sheriff's Department Auxiliary. The trial court and the majority of this court found that appellant's right to confront witnesses was not violated because appellant was able to cross-examine Jeffrey Corder regarding his interpretation of Cain's statement. I find that appellant's ability to cross-examine Corder does not provide the appellant with her right to confront witnesses. A cross-examination of Corder as to whether he was accurately reporting what he heard was not the same as a cross-examinatiion of Cain as to what he said, why he said it or whether he was biased.

---------------------- Judge Julie A. Edwards

For the reasons stated in the Memorandum-Opinion on file, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Coshocton County, Ohio, is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to that court for execution of sentence. Costs to appellant.

--------------------

--------------------

-------------------- JUDGES

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.