## Facts

- Willard Lee heard a disturbance outside his home, was struck in the face with a shotgun blast, and was left totally blind; an attempt was also made to ignite Lee’s house with a flammable liquid in a bottle.
- Larry Deisler fled Lee’s house by car and was pursued by a red Ford from which additional shots were fired.
- Police officers joined the pursuit; the driver abandoned the car, fled on foot, and fired at the officers during the flight.
- Later the same day, Randy Scott appeared at a theater where his girlfriend, Carol Tackett, was attending a show and spoke with her about someone being shot.
- The next day, Tackett gave police a handwritten, signed statement reporting, among other things, that Scott told her he had wrecked a car and shot a man.
- At trial, Tackett testified but could not recall Scott’s exact words about the shooting; she acknowledged the statement was written and signed by her, was accurate, and reflected a better memory than she had at trial.
- Over objection, the trial court admitted Tackett’s written statement as a hearsay exception for past recollection recorded.
- Scott was convicted of shooting with intent to kill, wound, or maim and of shooting at police officers; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Tackett’s handwritten, signed statement satisfied the evidentiary requirements for admission as a past recollection recorded when she recalled the conversation generally but not the precise words.
2. Whether admitting the statement violated the defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation when the declarant testified at trial and was subject to cross-examination.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment and upheld admission of Tackett’s statement.
- The court held the statement qualified as past recollection recorded because Tackett had firsthand knowledge, made the statement near the time of the events, lacked sufficient present recollection to testify fully and accurately, and affirmed the statement’s accuracy when made.
- The court held the Confrontation Clause was satisfied because Tackett appeared, testified, and was available for cross-examination regarding the statement and its circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- A writing may be admitted as past recollection recorded when: (1) the witness once had firsthand knowledge; (2) the writing was made or adopted while the matter was fresh; (3) the witness presently cannot testify fully and accurately from memory; and (4) the witness testifies the writing was accurate when made or adopted.
- Past recollection recorded differs from present recollection refreshed: if memory does not revive sufficiently, the recorded memorandum itself may be introduced for its content under the exception.
- The Confrontation Clause is generally not violated by introducing a prior statement when the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination about the statement.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the defendant’s convictions, concluding that a witness’s signed, contemporaneous written account could be admitted as past recollection recorded where the witness could not recall precise details at trial but confirmed the statement’s accuracy, and that admission did not offend confrontation rights because the witness testified and could be cross-examined.


State v. Scott, 31 Ohio St. 2d 1, 285 N.E.2d 344 (Ohio 1972)