The following definitions apply under this article:
Ohio. R. Evid. 801
Staff Note (July 1, 2019 Amendment)
Evid.R. 801(D)(1)
Since its inception, Evid.R. 801(D)(1)(a) has required that, for a prior sworn statement of a witness that was given at a prior trial, hearing or proceeding to be offered for its truth, the statement must have been subject to cross-examination at the time it was made. Thus, for example, as written, a police officer's grand jury testimony, if inconsistent with the officer's testimony at trial and exculpatory of the criminal defendant, could only be used by the defendant to impeach and not for the truth of the matter asserted - because the prosecution examined the witness in the grand jury but did not cross-examine the witness in the grand jury. Similarly, in a civil case, a defendant who desires to impeach a plaintiff's witness with prior testimony from a prior ex parte hearing at which the witness was subject to examination, but not cross-examination, by the plaintiff, is, under the letter of the Rule, not entitled to have that statement offered for its truth. Such a literal reading of the rule defeats its purpose - to allow a party to use a prior inconsistent statement for its truth so long as the opposing party had the opportunity to question that witness during the prior testimony, regardless of whether that opportunity presented itself on cross-, as opposed to direct, examination. The proposed amendment removes the requirement that the prior examination be a cross-examination. Accord, State v. York, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 49952 1985 WL 8502, (allowing prior inconsistent statement of police officer given on direct examination at preliminary hearing, to be offered by defense at trial as substantive evidence).
Staff Note (July 1, 2022 Amendment)
Evid.R. 801(C)
For clarity purposes, Ohio Evid.R. 801(C) is being amended with the addition of the words "in the statement" at the end of the standard hearsay definition.