State v. Hood
Ohio Supreme Court
135 Ohio St. 3d 137 (2012)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
James Hood (defendant) was charged with multiple crimes related to an attempted robbery. The prosecution (plaintiff) subpoenaed the cell-phone records of Hood and his coconspirators from their cell-phone companies. At trial, the prosecution introduced these records to prove communications between the coconspirators and to prove Hood’s whereabouts on the night in question. Detective Henry Veverka, who issued the subpoena, testified about the subpoena process and his experience in analyzing cell-phone records. The trial court admitted the cell-phone records under the business-records exception to the hearsay rule. Hood was convicted, and he appealed, arguing that the cell-phone records should not have been admitted.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pfeifer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
