[Cite as State v. Parker, 2023-Ohio-2722.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

SHELBY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 17-23-02

 v.

ROBERT J. PARKER, O P I N I O N

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from Sidney Municipal Court

Trial Court No. 22CRB00519

Judgment Affirmed

Date of Decision: August 7, 2023 

APPEARANCES:

Jim R. Gudgel for Appellant

David M. Busick for Appellee
Case No. 17-23-02

-2-

WALDICK, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Robert J. Parker (“Parker”), brings this appeal 

from the March 16, 2023, judgment of the Sidney Municipal Court sentencing him 

to 180 days in jail after a jury found him guilty of Assault in violation of R.C. 

2903.13, a first degree misdemeanor. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court.

Background

{¶2} The evidence in this case is generally straightforward and 

uncontradicted. On the evening of November 4, 2022, at approximately 8:20 p.m., 

three witnesses observed Parker physically kicking a woman who was on the ground 

and pressed against a fence in Sidney, Ohio. Further, the witnesses indicated that 

the victim was screaming for help. One of the witnesses recognized Parker as the 

assailant, and all three witnesses identified Parker at trial as the person kicking the

woman against a fence. 

{¶3} One of the witnesses called the police, but when Parker realized he was 

being observed, he got on his bicycle and left the scene. An officer arrived shortly 

thereafter and spoke with those present, including the victim, who complained that 

she was having trouble breathing. The victim’s blood was located on the ground 

nearby. The interaction between the officer and the people present was recorded on 

the officer’s body camera and played at trial.
Case No. 17-23-02

-3-

{¶4} Due to her injuries, the victim was taken to the hospital. The officer 

investigating the matter went and spoke with the victim again at the hospital, and 

that interaction was also recorded on the officer’s body camera and played at trial. 

At the hospital, the victim named Parker as her assailant. She also described the 

argument she had with Parker earlier that day, and indicated that she may have had 

a protection order against Parker at one point. However, the victim did not testify at 

trial and did not appear at trial at all despite being subpoenaed. 

{¶5} As a result of his actions, Parker was charged with Assault in violation 

of R.C. 2903.13(A), a first degree misdemeanor. He proceeded to a jury trial 

wherein he was found guilty, then he was sentenced to serve 180 days in jail. A 

judgment entry memorializing Parker’s sentence was filed March 16, 2023. It is 

from this judgment that he appeals, asserting the following assignment of error for 

our review.

Assignment of Error

The Defendant’s right to confront the witnesses at trial was 

violated in violation of the Confrontation Clause.

{¶6} In his assignment of error, Parker contends that the trial court erred by 

permitting the State to play body camera footage of the investigating officer 

interviewing the victim at the hospital because the victim did not testify in this 

matter. Parker argues that this evidence was presented in violation of the 

Confrontation Clause.
Case No. 17-23-02

-4-

Standard of Review

{¶7} Generally, the admission or exclusion of evidence lies within the trial 

court’s discretion, and a reviewing court should not reverse absent an abuse of 

discretion and material prejudice. State v. Conway, 109 Ohio St.3d 412, 2006-Ohio2815, ¶ 62. An abuse of discretion implies that the trial court acted unreasonably, 

arbitrarily, or unconscionably. State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157 (1980). 

“However, we review de novo evidentiary rulings that implicate the Confrontation 

Clause.” State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735, ¶ 97. “De novo 

review is independent, without deference to the lower court’s decision.” State v. 

Hudson, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-12-38, 2013-Ohio-647, ¶ 27.

Relevant Authority

{¶8} The Confrontation Clause to the Sixth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides 

that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be 

confronted with the witnesses against him * * *.” 

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted [the Sixth 

Amendment right to confrontation] to mean that admission of an outof-court statement of a witness who does not appear at trial is 

prohibited by the Confrontation Clause if the statement is testimonial 

unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior 

opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 2014-Ohio-1019, ¶ 34, citing Crawford v. 

Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004). The United States Supreme Court “did not 
Case No. 17-23-02

-5-

define the word ‘testimonial’ but stated that the core class of statements implicated 

by the Confrontation Clause includes statements ‘made under circumstances which 

would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be 

available for use at a later trial.’” Id. at ¶ 35, quoting Crawford at 52. 

Analysis

{¶9} At trial, Parker’s attorney objected to body camera footage of the 

investigating officer’s interaction with the victim at the hospital. Parker’s attorney 

argued that this interaction was after-the-fact and not part of an ongoing emergency, 

that the victim’s statement was testimonial, and that the statement was in violation 

of the Confrontation Clause because the victim did not testify at trial. The trial court 

overruled the objection and permitted the body camera footage to be played. The 

footage showed the victim specifically identifying Parker as her assailant. Parker

asserts that it was reversible error for the footage to be played at trial.

{¶10} Generally, when out-of-court statements made to law enforcement are 

at issue under the Confrontation Clause, the “primary purpose” test applies. State v. 

Little, 3d Allen No. 1-16-29, 2016-Ohio-8398, ¶ 18. Under this test,

[s]tatements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police 

interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the 

primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to 

meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the 

circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing 

emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to 

establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal 

prosecution.
Case No. 17-23-02

-6-

State v. Perkins, 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13–10–36, 2011-Ohio-2705, 2011 WL 

2345291, ¶ 4, quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S.Ct. 2266 

(2006). 

{¶11} When applying the primary purpose test to this case, there is no

indication that there was still an ongoing emergency at the time the officer spoke 

with the victim at the hospital, and it was at that time that the victim made an outof-court identification of Parker as her assailant. See State v. Smith, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-180499, 2019-Ohio-3257. Contrary to the State’s suggestion, the 

victim’s identification at the hospital to the officer was neither an excited utterance, 

nor a statement for purposes of medical diagnosis.

1 Further, the identification goes

directly to the truth of the matter asserted.

{¶12} While a recording of an interaction on a police body camera may seem 

reliable, the Confrontation Clause is designed to prohibit out-of-court statements 

that are untested by cross-examination. Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 358, 131 

S.Ct. 1143 (2011) (“Even where * * * an interrogation is conducted with all good 

faith, introduction of the resulting statements at trial can be unfair to the accused if 

they are untested by cross-examination. Whether formal or informal, out-of-court 

statements can evade the basic objective of the Confrontation Clause, which is to 

1 Moreover, we note that while the State argues that the body camera footage met certain hearsay exceptions, 

the State largely ignores the fact that the Confrontation Clause may bar admission of evidence that could 

otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St.3d 49, 60 (2001).
Case No. 17-23-02

-7-

prevent the accused from being deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the 

declarant about statements taken for use at trial.”).

{¶13} Furthermore, we emphasize that 

The purpose of body cameras is to record events in which law 

enforcement officers are involved to improve officer safety, increase 

evidence quality, reduce civilian complaints and reduce agency 

liability * * * not to supplant the in-court testimony of witnesses. Outof-court statements that would otherwise be inadmissible do not 

become admissible simply because they were captured on a police 

body camera.

State v. Smith, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111274, 2023-Ohio-603, ¶ 94.

{¶14} After conducting our de novo review of the record, we do not agree 

with the trial court that the body camera footage from the hospital was admissible 

in this case because it is both hearsay with no exception established by the State and 

because it is in violation of the Confrontation Clause. See State v. Smith, 1st Dist. 

Hamilton No. C-180499, 2019-Ohio-3257 (holding that body camera footage was 

inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause where witness did not testify at trial 

and there was no ongoing emergency). However, this does not end our analysis

because Confrontation Clause issues (and hearsay issues) are subject to harmless 

error review. State v. McKelton, 148 Ohio St.3d 261, 2016-Ohio-5735; State v. 

Thomas, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-19-73, 2020-Ohio-5379, ¶ 27. Harmless error 

review requires: 1) that the defendant was prejudiced by the admission of the 

improper evidence at trial, 2) that the appellate court believes that the error was “not 
Case No. 17-23-02

-8-

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” and 3) that after excising the improper 

evidence, the remaining evidence overwhelmingly supports finding the defendant 

guilty. State v. Morris, 141 Ohio St.3d 399, 2014-Ohio-5052, ¶ 27-29.

{¶15} Here, there is no question that introducing the body camera footage 

was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Three eyewitnesses all testified at trial 

and specifically identified Parker as the assailant. Any statement made by the victim 

through body camera footage hours after the incident identifying Parker as her 

assailant was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record. Thomas, supra, at 

¶ 26. Because the evidence from the body camera was merely cumulative, and the 

evidence overwhelmingly supports a finding of guilt even without the body camera 

footage, we find that any error here was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. For 

this reason, Parker’s assignment of error is overruled.

Conclusion

{¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to Parker in the particulars assigned 

and argued, his assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the Sidney 

Municipal Court is affirmed.

Judgment Affirmed

WILLAMOWSKI and ZIMMERMAN, J.J., concur.

/jlr