Ohio v. Clark
E822925
Ohio v. Clark is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the limits of the Confrontation Clause in the context of statements made by child abuse victims to non-law-enforcement individuals.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Ohio v. Clark canonical | 2 |
| Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (2015) | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9799020 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Ohio v. Clark Context triple: [Crawford v. Washington, subsequentCaseInterpreting, Ohio v. Clark]
-
A.
Ohio v. Roberts
Ohio v. Roberts is a landmark 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case that established a reliability-based framework for admitting hearsay evidence under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, later curtailed by Crawford v. Washington.
-
B.
Michigan v. Bryant
Michigan v. Bryant is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to police are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to Sixth Amendment protections.
-
C.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
D.
Kentucky v. Dennison
Kentucky v. Dennison was an 1861 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that federal courts could not compel state governors to carry out interstate extradition.
-
E.
Jacobellis v. Ohio
Jacobellis v. Ohio is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that refined the constitutional standards for obscenity under the First Amendment, famously associated with Justice Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” concurrence.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Ohio v. Clark Target entity description: Ohio v. Clark is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the limits of the Confrontation Clause in the context of statements made by child abuse victims to non-law-enforcement individuals.
-
A.
Ohio v. Roberts
Ohio v. Roberts is a landmark 1980 U.S. Supreme Court case that established a reliability-based framework for admitting hearsay evidence under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, later curtailed by Crawford v. Washington.
-
B.
Michigan v. Bryant
Michigan v. Bryant is a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision that further defined the scope of the Confrontation Clause by clarifying when statements made to police are considered “testimonial” and thus subject to Sixth Amendment protections.
-
C.
Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on cross burning carried out with intent to intimidate while clarifying the limits of First Amendment protection for hate speech and symbolic expression.
-
D.
Kentucky v. Dennison
Kentucky v. Dennison was an 1861 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited federal power by holding that federal courts could not compel state governors to carry out interstate extradition.
-
E.
Jacobellis v. Ohio
Jacobellis v. Ohio is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision that refined the constitutional standards for obscenity under the First Amendment, famously associated with Justice Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it” concurrence.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Confrontation Clause case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ |
| appliedPrecedent |
Crawford v. Washington
ⓘ
Davis v. Washington ⓘ Michigan v. Bryant ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional criminal procedure
ⓘ
evidence law ⓘ |
| citation | 576 U.S. 237 ⓘ |
| citationStyle |
Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (2015)
ⓘ
linked to:
Ohio v. Clark
|
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2015-06-18 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 13-1352 ⓘ |
| factsSummary | A three-year-old child with visible injuries identified his mother’s boyfriend, Darius Clark, as the abuser when questioned by preschool teachers. ⓘ |
| fullName | Ohio v. Clark ⓘ |
| holding | Statements made by a child to his teachers about suspected abuse were not testimonial and their admission at trial did not violate the Confrontation Clause. ⓘ |
| impact |
clarified that statements by very young children to teachers about abuse can be admitted without violating the Confrontation Clause when not primarily intended as testimony.
ⓘ
narrowed the circumstances in which out-of-court statements are considered testimonial. ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ Clarence Thomas ⓘ Elena Kagan ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalIssue |
scope of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause
ⓘ
statements by child abuse victims to non-law-enforcement personnel ⓘ testimonial versus nontestimonial hearsay ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ |
| originatingJurisdiction |
State of Ohio
ⓘ
linked to:
Ohio
|
| petitioner |
State of Ohio
ⓘ
linked to:
Ohio
|
| proceduralHistory | Ohio courts held that admission of the child’s statements to teachers violated the Confrontation Clause. ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
child protective reporting statutes
ⓘ
mandatory reporter obligations of teachers ⓘ |
| respondent | Darius Clark ⓘ |
| resultForRespondent | conviction reinstated ⓘ |
| reversed | judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio ⓘ |
| ruleOfLaw |
Mandatory reporting duties of teachers do not by themselves transform conversations with students into law-enforcement interrogations.
ⓘ
Statements are testimonial when their primary purpose is to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony. ⓘ Statements to individuals who are not law enforcement officers are less likely to be testimonial. ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
child abuse
ⓘ
criminal prosecution for assault and related offenses ⓘ hearsay evidence ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2014 ⓘ |
| vote | 9-0 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Ohio v. Clark Description of subject: Ohio v. Clark is a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that clarified the limits of the Confrontation Clause in the context of statements made by child abuse victims to non-law-enforcement individuals.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Ohio v. Clark