# State v. Ward

> Ohio Supreme Court · December 31, 1984 · 15 Ohio St. 3d 355

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6758704

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Ohio v. Ward, Appellant The State of Ohio v. Miller
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 31, 1984
- **Citations:** 15 Ohio St. 3d 355; 15 Ohio B. 477; 474 N.E.2d 300; 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1302
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 50 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6758704

## Opinion text

C. Brown, J.,
dissenting. Because I am firmly convinced that the police logs pertaining to calibration of intoxilyzer equipment constitute inadmissible hearsay, I dissent.
*359 Such records are specifically barred from admission into evidence by Evid. R. 803(8). This rule expressly excludes reports of public offices or agencies setting forth matters observed by police officers and other law enforcement personnel in criminal cases, unless offered by the defendant. Such reports are hearsay and are not subject to any exemption.
This court’s decision in State v. Walker (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 192 [ 7 O.O.3d 368 ], to the effect that such records are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, was predicated on R.C. 2317.42. Walker , however, predated the adoption of the Ohio Rules of Evidence. R.C. 2317.42 has clearly been superseded by the subsequently enacted Evid. R. 803(8), which specifically excludes such evidence. The rule plainly provides that reports such as those in the instant causes are hearsay and not admissible, regardless of authentication or the supporting testimony of the calibrating officer. Evid. R. 803(8) being later than the statute in terms of the date of enactment, the rule prevails over R.C. 2317.42. See R.C. 1.52.
Based on this analysis, I would reverse the judgment of the courts of appeals in both of the cases at bar.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6758704. Public record. Not legal advice.