In October
2014, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of the Ohio Supreme Court’s
decision, in State v. Clark, to overturn a man’s
convictions for child abuse. The Court
will have to decide two issues in the case: whether a mandatory reporter of
child abuse acts as an agent of law enforcement for the purposes of the
confrontation clause, and whether admission at trial of a child’s hearsay
statements made to his teachers violates a defendant’s sixth amendment right to
confront the witnesses against him.
The case
arose after a preschool teacher noticed whip-like marks and other injuries on
one of her three-year-old students at school. After asking the three-year old some questions
about the marks, she got the other teachers involved, and they came to suspect
that the child had been abused. Some of
the child’s answers to the teachers implicated his mother’s boyfriend, Mr.
Clark, as the abuser. One of the
teachers, in
accordance with her mandatory duty to report child abuse, called the child
abuse hotline and child protective services investigated the matter. Mr. Clark was later arrested for child abuse
and at trial, the court found the three-year old incompetent to testify, but
permitted his teachers to testify to the child’s statements. Mr. Clark was convicted of four counts of
felonious assault, two counts of child endangering resulting in serious
physical harm, and two counts of domestic violence, and was sentenced to 28
years in prison.
