State v. Hagerman

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed Jamison Hagerman’s conviction for fourth-degree-felony domestic violence. The court held that the trial court properly admitted the unavailable victim’s statements under Evid.R. 804(B)(6), finding forfeiture by wrongdoing based on Hagerman’s communications and conduct intended in part to prevent the victim from testifying. The court also rejected challenges to the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence.

Holdings

1. The trial court properly admitted A.B.'s recorded statements and portions of the jail calls because the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Hagerman engaged in wrongdoing that caused A.B. to be unavailable and that at least one purpose of the wrongdoing was to prevent her from testifying.
2. The trial court properly denied Hagerman's Crim.R. 29 motion because, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Hagerman knowingly caused physical harm to a household member.
3. The conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence because the State presented a greater amount of credible evidence supporting the conviction than opposing it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly admitted A.B.'s recorded statements and portions of recorded jail calls under Evid.R. 804(B)(6), the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Hagerman's conviction for domestic violence under R.C. 2919.25(A), such that the trial court properly denied his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal.
3. Whether Hagerman's domestic-violence conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Disposition

affirmed