Term: 2014
Docket: 13-1352
Ohio v. Clark
- Pro
13-1352 OHIO V. CLARK DECISION BELOW: 999 N.E.2d 592 CERT. GRANTED 10/2/2014 QUESTION PRESENTED: In all fifty States, certain individuals-most often, teachers, social workers, and medical professionals-have a mandatory duty to report suspected child abuse that they notice in the course of their work. In this case, the Ohio Supreme Court held both that this mandatory- reporting duty turned daycare teachers into "agents of the state for law-enforcement purposes" and that a child's out-of-court statements to the teachers qualified as "testimonial" under the Confrontation Clause. It did so even though there was no police involvement in the encounter between the teachers and child. Several other state supreme courts, by contrast, have rejected arguments that these mandatory-reporting statutes turn an individual subject to them into "law enforcement," and have held instead that a child's statements to the individual were non-testimonial and thus not subject to the Confrontation Clause. The two questions presented are: 1. Does an individual's obligation to report suspected child abuse make that individual an agent of law enforcement for purposes of the Confrontation Clause? 2. Do a child's out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher's concerns about potential child abuse qualify as "testimonial" statements subject to the Confrontation Clause? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2012-0215
The U.S. Supreme Court case Ohio v. Clark, 2014, involved the issue of whether statements made by a three-year-old boy to his teachers about physical abuse could be used as evidence in court against Darius Clark, who was convicted for abusing him. The defense argued that using these statements violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment which gives defendants the right to confront their accusers in court. However, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that these statements were not testimonial and thus did not violate this clause because they were made in an emergency context rather than for prosecution purposes. Therefore, they could be admitted as evidence without requiring confrontation with the child victim.
In the dissenting opinion for Ohio v. Clark, Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Ginsburg and partially by Justice Thomas, argued that the majority's decision was a significant departure from established precedent regarding hearsay evidence. He contended that the child's statements to his teachers about abuse should not have been admitted as evidence because they were testimonial in nature and thus violated Clark's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. The dissent criticized the majority for creating an exception to this rule based on whether or not there was an ongoing emergency when the statement was made - something which had never before been considered relevant in determining if a statement is testimonial or non-testimonial. Furthermore, he disagreed with their assertion that children are less likely than adults to understand legal proceedings and therefore their statements are inherently non-testimonial; instead arguing it would be more appropriate to assess each case individually rather than making blanket assumptions about all children.
