The Ohio Supreme Court has issued a ruling regarding the admissibility of statements made by a witness to police following an August 2020 shooting in Cincinnati. The court determined that initial statements given by Doniesha Monroe, a witness to the incident, were nontestimonial because they were made during an emergency situation. However, once the suspect was apprehended, any further statements became testimonial.
Justice Patrick F. Fischer, in the lead opinion, noted that Monroe's statements transitioned from nontestimonial to testimonial as police questioning progressed. "Monroe spoke with police after an August 2020 incident in downtown Cincinnati," Justice Fischer wrote. During this incident, Keshawn Turner was shot and later died from his injuries.
Initially, when questioned by police at the scene—recorded on a body camera—Monroe identified Quantez Wilcox as the shooter. Her identification and details about Wilcox were shared over police radio before he was apprehended.
At trial, Monroe did not testify in person; nonetheless, Wilcox was convicted of multiple felonies including murder. The court concluded that her early statements did not violate Wilcox’s right to confront witnesses since they addressed an ongoing emergency. However, whether these initial statements qualify as hearsay remains unresolved and will be reviewed by the First District Court of Appeals.
Justice Melody Stewart concurred with the judgment but disagreed with reviewing certain aspects related to confrontation rights since she believed those arguments had been forfeited earlier in proceedings.
Conversely, Justice R. Patrick DeWine dissented partly by stating all of Monroe's statements should be considered nontestimonial due to their emergency context throughout questioning.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Judge Mary Katherine Huffman joined Justice DeWine's dissenting opinion on parts of this case.
Wilcox’s case has been remanded for further examination concerning potential hearsay implications and additional legal arguments presented during appeal processes under docket number 2023-1204 (State v. Wilcox).