STATE APPELLATE · 201934 / 55

State v. Hemmelgarn

State v. Hemmelgarn, 2019-Ohio-2034 — no N.E.3d citation appears in the CourtListener record (2019). Decided in Ohio Ct. App..

COURT: Ohio Ct. App.
DECIDED: 2019
CITATION: 2019-Ohio-2034 — no N.E.3d citation appears in the CourtListener record
OUTCOME: Admitted
STANDARD: State Rule 702 analogue
CITED BY: 5 later opinions (CourtListener)

THE HOLDING

An officer who used Cellebrite to extract data from the defendant's cell phone did not have to be qualified as an expert; his account of the extraction was properly received as lay-witness testimony.

ADMITTED

CHECK THIS ENTRY AGAINST THE SOURCE

Every entry in this docket was written from the opinion itself, and this is the copy that was read. If the opinion does not support what is written here, the entry is wrong — tell us and it will be corrected or removed rather than softened.

READ THE OPINIONState v. Hemmelgarn, 2019-Ohio-2034 — no N.E.3d citation appears in the CourtListener record↗

COURTLISTENER · FREE LAW PROJECT · OPENS IN THE SAME TAB

On this page

The court's reasoning
From the opinion
Grounds argued
Practice note
Rulings on the same grounds

The court’s reasoning

The court characterised the testimony as a factual description of the steps taken and of what the generated report showed, rather than opinion resting on specialised knowledge. It aligned its holding with two decisions from another Ohio district and with federal authority under Rules 701 and 702, and reviewed the ruling for abuse of discretion.

From the opinion

“we agree with the trial court that Marion did not need to be qualified as an expert to testify about his use of the Cellebrite program in this case”
State v. Hemmelgarn, 2019-Ohio-2034 — no N.E.3d citation appears in the CourtListener record (2019)

Grounds argued

This ruling turned on 2 of the eight arguments that recur across the docket. Each is defined the same way on every entry, so the same ground can be followed across rulings that reached opposite results.

Qualifications: Whether this witness — by training, certification, or documented casework — is competent to give this opinion. Courts routinely admit examiners qualified by experience alone, and routinely narrow them when the opinion strays past the experience they described.
Scope creep: Whether the examiner stayed inside the technical question and out of intent, credibility, and legal conclusions. It is the most avoidable ground on this list and one of the most common.

Practice note

Practice note — our reading, not the court’s

EDITORIAL. THIS PARAGRAPH IS NOT PART OF THE HOLDING AND WAS NOT SAID BY THE COURT.

The State said in open court that it was not offering the officer as an expert, and that framing survived. Where an examiner will describe the extraction and read out the report, the disclosure decision should be made deliberately rather than by default — but note the narrower Massachusetts and Seventh Circuit lines in this docket, which put the same testimony on the other side of the line once it reaches tool reliability.

Everything above this panel — the holding, the reasoning, the quoted line — is a report of what the court decided and can be checked against the linked opinion. This paragraph is our own judgement about what a testifying examiner should do differently, and it should be cited as that or not at all.

One ruling is not a rule. These are the other entries in the docket argued on the same grounds, most-cited first — including the ones that came out the other way, which are the ones worth reading before relying on this entry for anything.

ON QUALIFICATIONS

Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999) EXCLUDED
Wellogix v. Accenture 716 F.3d 867 (2013) ADMITTED
Krause v. State 243 S.W.3d 95 (2007) ADMITTED
United States v. Chiaradio 684 F.3d 265 (2012) ADMITTED

ON SCOPE CREEP

ClearOne Communications v. Biamp Systems 653 F.3d 1163 (2011) ADMITTED
United States v. Noel 581 F.3d 490 (2009) EXCLUDED
United States v. Hill 818 F.3d 289 (2016) ADMITTED
Passlogix v. 2FA Technology 708 F. Supp. 2d 378 (2010) ADMITTED IN PART

THIS ARGUMENT IN YOUR MATTER

If an opinion in your case has to survive the argument this ruling turned on — or you need one tested before it is served — Law & Forensics retains court-tested digital forensic expert witnesses and forensic neutrals.

START A CONFLICTS CHECK→

DIRECT → info@lawandforensics.com·855-529-2466

A conflicts check and scoping call follow, normally within one business day. Please do not send privileged or case-sensitive material until conflicts have cleared.

The Daubert Docket
All 55 rulings, filterable by ground, outcome and court, with the distribution across the three outcomes reported up front.
Daubert and digital evidence
The argument this docket is the evidence for: why an opinion stated one level too strongly is an admissibility problem under Rule 702(d).
Daubert Exposure Check
Twelve questions about an expert's methodology, mapped to the failure modes these rulings keep finding, with the remediation for each gap.
Daubert or Frye?
Which reliability test your forum applies — settle that before relying on a ruling from another jurisdiction.

← BACK TO THE DAUBERT DOCKET

Attorney advertising / expert services. Each entry summarises a decision as it appeared in the opinion linked from that entry, on the day the entry was written. Decisions are reversed, vacated, superseded, and distinguished, and the text of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 was itself amended effective 1 December 2023 — check the current status and subsequent history of any ruling before relying on it. Nothing here is legal advice, none of it is a prediction about how any court will rule, and it is not a substitute for the rules, standing orders and case law of your own forum.