Ohio v. Clark
Facts
Clark cared for his girlfriend's two young children while she was away. The next day, L. P.'s preschool teachers noticed red marks and other injuries on 3-year-old L. P. and asked what happened and who caused them; L. P. identified "Dee," meaning Clark. The teachers asked these questions immediately at school after seeing the injuries and then reported suspected abuse through a child abuse hotline. At Clark's trial, L. P. did not testify because the trial court found him incompetent, but the State introduced his out-of-court statements to the teachers.
Issue
Whether the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause barred the State from introducing a 3-year-old child's statements to his preschool teachers identifying his abuser when the child did not testify at trial. More specifically, the question was whether those statements were testimonial.
Rule
A statement falls within the Confrontation Clause only if, viewed objectively in light of all the relevant circumstances, its primary purpose was to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony. Statements to persons other than law enforcement officers are not categorically excluded from the Clause, but they are much less likely to be testimonial, especially when made during an ongoing emergency, in an informal and spontaneous setting, and by a very young child. The primary purpose test is a necessary, though not always sufficient, condition for exclusion under the Confrontation Clause.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Under the Sixth Amendment as interpreted by the Court's majority, is Eli's statement most likely testimonial?