Davis v. State of Ohio, Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Case No. CV96-312322
February 22, 2000
hearsay, character evidence, Ohio R. Evid. 803(3), Ohio R. Evid. 803(1), Ohio R. Evid. 801(c), Ohio R. Evid. 404(a)(1), marital discord, plaintiff's filing
Motion by the Sheppard Estate arguing that evidence regarding the relationship between Dr. Samuel Sheppard and Marilyn Sheppard is inadmissible hearsay and double hearsay pursuant to rule 801(c) of the Ohio Rules of Evidence. The Estate argues that such evidence does not satisfy the elements of the “present sense impression” and “state of mind” exceptions. Rule 803(1) creates a narrow exception to hearsay for present sense impressions, requiring that the hearer be in the position to verify the truthfulness of the statement at the time it was made. The Estate disagrees with the State’s contention that … Rule 803(3) creates the “state of mind” exception to hearsay admissibility, and only applies to a statements about the “declarant’s state of mind, emotion, sensation or physical condition.” The motion further argues against the use of character evidence being introduced absent the introduction of such evidence by the Estate pursuant to rule 404(A)(1). The motion presents the State of Ohio’s argument as one of asking the jury to draw an “inference, upon an inference, upon an inference, upon an inference.”
Carr, George H. and Gilbert, Terry H., "Plaintiff's Memorandum Regarding Inadmissibility of Improper Hearsay and Character Evidence" (2000). 1995-2002 Court Filings. 142.