State v. Maxwell

Supreme Court of Ohio · 2014 · Evidence

139 Ohio St. 3d 12 (2014)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceConfrontation ClauseAutopsy reportsExpert testimonySixth AmendmentCrawfordautopsy reportbusiness records

Facts

After Nichole McCorkle was shot and killed, Dr. David Dolinak conducted her autopsy and prepared an autopsy report. At trial, the state called Dr. Joseph Felo, who had not performed the autopsy, to testify after reviewing the autopsy report, photographs, x-rays, and tissue slides. Over Maxwell's objection, the trial court admitted both Dr. Felo's testimony and Dr. Dolinak's autopsy report. Dr. Felo testified to his own conclusion that McCorkle died from gunshot wounds to the head and that the manner of death was homicide.

Issue

Whether admitting an autopsy report prepared by a non-testifying medical examiner, and permitting testimony by a deputy coroner who did not perform the autopsy, violated Maxwell's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under Crawford and later Supreme Court cases.

Rule

A statement is testimonial when its primary purpose is to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony. An autopsy report that is neither prepared for the primary purpose of accusing a targeted individual nor prepared for the primary purpose of providing evidence in a criminal trial is nontestimonial, and its admission under Evid.R. 803(6) as a business record does not violate the Confrontation Clause. A substitute medical examiner may testify to his own independent opinions derived from reviewing the forensic materials, and such original observations and opinions do not violate confrontation rights when the witness is available for cross-examination.

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, a county coroner performed an autopsy on a man found dead alone in an apartment after neighbors reported a foul odor. State law required the coroner to determine and record the cause and manner of death, and months later prosecutors charged the decedent’s landlord with homicide after unrelated evidence surfaced.

At the landlord’s trial, the prosecution offers the autopsy report under the business-records exception even though the pathologist who prepared it has moved overseas and will not testify. Which is the strongest argument for admissibility under the governing rule?

Explanation. The controlling rule asks whether the report was prepared for the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony. An autopsy report is nontestimonial when it was prepared neither to accuse a targeted individual nor primarily to provide evidence in a criminal trial. A report created pursuant to routine coroner duties to determine cause and manner of death may therefore be admitted as a business record without violating confrontation rights.