## Facts

- James Hood was prosecuted in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas for offenses arising from an attempted home-invasion robbery involving multiple participants; during the incident, one participant, Samuel Peet, was killed.
- To support the State’s theory that Hood coordinated with others and to place Hood in the relevant area around the time of the crimes, the State subpoenaed cell-phone records for Hood and alleged coconspirators from their cellular providers.
- At trial, the State offered the provider records to show calls between the alleged participants and to support inferences about Hood’s location on the morning of the crimes.
- Detective Henry Veverka, who issued the subpoenas, testified about how he requested and received the records and about his prior experience reviewing and analyzing cell-phone records.
- The State did not call a records custodian or other qualified witness from the cellular providers to explain how the providers generated and maintained the records in the ordinary course of business.
- The records were admitted over objection under the business-records exception to the hearsay rule, and the exhibits included the detective’s handwritten notes on the records.
- The jury convicted Hood of murder and additional counts, including aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping.
- The Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that even if admitting the records were constitutional error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because other evidence strongly supported guilt.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio first issued a merits opinion (later reported at 134 Ohio St.3d 595) but, on the State’s motion for reconsideration, vacated that earlier opinion and issued the reconsideration opinion reported at 135 Ohio St.3d 137.

## Issues

1. Whether cell-phone records produced by a cellular provider are, in general, “testimonial” statements that trigger the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
2. Whether the State properly authenticated the provider records as business records when it relied on an investigating detective’s testimony rather than testimony from a custodian or other qualified witness from the provider.
3. If admitting the records violated the Confrontation Clause, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio granted reconsideration to correct overbroad language in its prior opinion suggesting that a hearsay violation itself equals a Confrontation Clause violation; the court vacated the earlier slip opinion and replaced it with the reconsideration opinion.
- The court held that cell-phone company records are ordinarily business records and ordinarily not testimonial if they are properly authenticated as such.
- The court held that the records introduced at Hood’s trial were not properly authenticated as business records because the State did not present a custodian or other qualified witness able to testify that the records were made and kept in the ordinary course of the provider’s regularly conducted activity.
- Because the records lacked that business-record foundation, the court treated their admission as constitutional error under the Confrontation Clause (rejecting the State’s claim that the error was merely evidentiary).
- The court nonetheless affirmed the convictions, concluding that the Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the strength of the remaining evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause applies to testimonial out-of-court statements offered for their truth; nontestimonial statements generally do not require confrontation.
- Records created and kept in the ordinary course of a company’s regularly conducted activity, for business purposes rather than for prosecution, are commonly treated as nontestimonial business records when properly authenticated.
- Cell-phone provider call records are ordinarily nontestimonial when a proper business-record foundation is established.
- To admit a record under the business-records exception, the proponent must present a custodian or other qualified witness (or another permitted method of authentication) who can testify to the provider’s record-keeping practice; an investigating officer’s receipt of documents by subpoena and familiarity with reading the documents does not, by itself, authenticate the provider’s records as business records.
- A hearsay problem does not automatically create a Confrontation Clause violation; the constitutional question turns on whether the evidence is testimonial and whether the defendant had the required opportunity for cross-examination.
- Confrontation Clause violations are reviewed for constitutional harmless error; the conviction stands if the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict.

## Conclusion

State v. Hood, 135 Ohio St. 3d 137 (2012) (reconsideration) held that carrier cell-phone records are generally nontestimonial when properly authenticated as business records, but that introducing provider records through an investigating detective without proper business-record authentication was a Confrontation Clause violation; the court affirmed because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
