Ohio v. Roberts
| Ohio v. Roberts | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 26, 1979 Decided June 25, 1980 |
|
| Full case name | Ohio v. Hershel Roberts |
| Citations | 448 U.S. 56 (more) |
| Holding | |
| The introduction in evidence at respondent's trial of the daughter's preliminary hearing testimony was constitutionally permissible. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Blackmun, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Powell, Rehnquist |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. VI | |
|
Overruled by
|
|
| Crawford v. Washington (2004) | |
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Herschel Roberts was charged with forgery of a check and with possession of stolen credit cards. At the preliminary hearing, defense counsel called the victims' daughter to the stand and tried to elicit from her an admission that she provided defendant with the checks and the credit card but failed to inform the defendant that she did not have permission to use them. Counsel was unable to elicit this admission nor did the prosecutor cross-examine the witness.
The daughter was subpoenaed five times but never appeared for trial. At trial, the defendant testified that the daughter had given him her parents' checkbook and credit cards with the understanding he could use them. The State, on rebuttal, offered the transcript of the daughter's testimony pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section 2945.49 (1975) which permits the use of preliminary examination testimony of a witness who “cannot for any reason be produced at trial.” The defense objected asserting that use of the transcript violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (incorporated to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). The trial court admitted the transcript and the defendant was convicted. The Supreme Court of Ohio overturned the conviction. That court held that the daughter's absence at trial and the lack of cross-examination at the preliminary hearing violated the Confrontation Clause.
...
Wikipedia