Case Title: State v. Cardosi

Citation: 1998-Ohio-133

Docket Number: 19970688

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-09-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. CARDOSI, A.K.A. CORDOSI, APPELLANT. 
[Cite as State v. Cardosi (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Certification of conflict dismissed as improvidently allowed. 
(No. 97-688 — Submitted March 3, 1998 — Decided September 16, 1998.) 
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Clark County, No. 95-CA-0126. 
__________________ 
 
Suzanne M. Luthe, Clark County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for 
appellee. 
 
Noel Edward Kaech, Clark County Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Sutton, State Solicitor, 
Simon B. Karas, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Alice Robinson-Bond, Assistant 
Attorney General, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Attorney General. 
__________________ 
 
The certification of conflict is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been 
improvidently allowed. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s 
decision to dismiss this case as improvidently allowed.  I believe we should, in 
accordance with our rules, resolve the conflict between the evidentiary rulings in 
this case and in State v. Black (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 724, 622 N.E.2d 1166. 
 
The issue certified to this court by the Second District Court of Appeals is 
“[w]hether a finding pursuant to Evid.R. 601(A) that a child under ten years of age 
is incompetent to testify at trial makes that child’s testimony ‘not reasonably 
obtainable’ for purposes of Evid.R. 80[7](A)(2) under the standards set out in 
 
2
Evid.R. 807(B)(2) * * *.”  See State v. Cardosi (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1494, 678 
N.E.2d 1230. 
 
In Black, the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the 
trial court denying the state’s application to present hearsay testimony pursuant to 
Evid.R. 807, by reasoning that admissibility of testimony under 807(A)(2) based 
on the child’s testimony being “not reasonably obtainable” is not triggered where 
there is a finding that the child-victim is incompetent to testify at trial.  87 Ohio 
App.3d at 728-729, 622 N.E.2d at 1169. 
 
By contrast, in Cardosi’s case the Second District Court of Appeals affirmed 
the judgment of the trial court admitting hearsay evidence of the child’s 
statements, stating that “[t]he condition of absence prescribed in [Evid.R. 807] * * 
* applies to any substantial impediment to the child’s appearance as a witness in 
the proceeding.  Certainly a finding of incompetency does just that.  Therefore, 
when a court finds that a child is not competent to be a witness her testimony is 
‘not reasonably obtainable’ pursuant to Evid.R. 807(B)(2).”  State v. Cardosi (Jan. 
17, 1997), Clark App. No. 95-CA-0126, unreported, 1997 WL 52924. 
 
Because these two districts differ on the same legal point, this court should 
resolve that difference of opinion.  Had we done so, my view would have been that 
the admissibility problem was properly analyzed by the Black court. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concur in the foregoing 
dissenting opinion.