Ohio v. Clark
Issues
- Whether someone who must report suspected child abuse is considered an agent of law enforcement under the Confrontation Clause.
- Whether a child’s statements to a teacher about child abuse are “testimonial” statements for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.
The Supreme Court will determine whether teachers who are obligated to report suspected child abuse are agents of law enforcement and whether a child’s out-of-court statements to a teacher about child abuse are testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. Ohio asserts that a child’s statements made to teachers about potential child abuse are not testimonial because their primary purpose is not intended to further investigation, but rather to protect children. Also, Ohio argues and that teachers that must report suspected child abuse to authorities are not agents of the state. Darius Clark counters that teachers intend to report the potential child abuse when they question children and thus, teachers are agents of the state in doing so. The Additionally, Clark contends that the children’s statements are testimonial because they are meant to further the prosecution of the suspected abuser. The Court’s ruling impacts the admissibility of children’s statements about potential child abuse under the Confrontation Clause when children make statements to teachers who are obligated to report suspected child abuse to state authorities.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
- Does an individual’s obligation to report suspected child abuse make that individual an agent of law enforcement for purposes of the Confrontation Clause?
- Do a child’s out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher’s concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the Confrontation Clause?
T.T. had two children, L.P. and A.T., and lived with her boyfriend Darius Clark. See State v. Clark, 999 N.E.2d 592, 594 (Ohio 2013). While L.P., T.T.’s three-year-old son, was at the William Patrick Day Head Start Center in Cleveland, Ohio, on March 17, 2010, one of his preschool teachers noticed that his eye was bloodshot.
Edited by
The authors would like to thank Professor Valerie Hans of Cornell Law School for her insights into this case.
Additional Resources
- Sherry Colb: The U.S. Supreme Court Revisits Hearsay and the Sixth Amendment, Verdict (Oct. 14, 2014).
- Joan Meier: Ohio v. Clark: Do Children’s Statements Have to Be Live Testimony, Huffington Post (Oct. 28, 2014).