285 N.E.2d 344 (1972)
At trial the defendant had objected to the admission of a statement that a testifying witness had given to the police the day after the shooting regarding a conversation she had had with defendant. Defendant had argued that because the rule of past recollection recorded was not recognized in Ohio, the statement was inadmissible hearsay. The trial court admitted the statement.
- On appeal, the court held that the admission of the witness's signed statement as past recollection recorded was proper and did not deny defendant his right of confrontation or cross-examination.
- The court first held that the rule of past recollection recorded should be recognized in Ohio.
- The court found no constitutional violation because the witness was testifying and was subject to cross-examination.
- In holding that the witness's statement met the requirements of past recollection recorded, the court found that the statement consisted of facts of which the witness had firsthand knowledge; that the statement was made the day after the event when the witness still had a clear memory of it; that the witness lacked present recollection; and that the witness stated that the document was accurate.
The court affirmed the defendant's conviction.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Evidence
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.