Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. DeWine finds the trial court erred when it allowed a witness to testify by video in this sexual relations case of a father with his minor adopted child. The father argues that the video testimony should have been face-to-face, and since it wasn’t, this violated his constitutional right to confront a witness. The appeals court and this one found that the use of video conferencing was a harmless error, and it had no bearing the father’s conviction of sexual battery. Affirmed.
To read this case, start your 14-day free trial.
Request a free trial account to get access to more case data, documents, and features.
To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.