State v. Haynes, 2013 Ohio 2401

Appellant Marvin R. Haynes was charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, sexual imposition, and importuning in Ashtabula County, Ohio.
The state filed three counts based on incidents with a 15-year-old victim occurring in 2010; Haynes pleaded not guilty.
The defense moved to suppress statements and intercepted phone calls, arguing Miranda and Fourth Amendment violations.
A suppression hearing occurred; detectives testified about controlled calls arranged with the victim to elicit an admission.
At trial, the jury acquitted on one count and convicted on importuning; sentencing was deferred and later imposed, with a 90-day jail term and two years of probation.
A notarized recantation letter from the victim surfaced prior to sentencing, but the victim later stated he recanted under coercion; bond issues and a motion for new trial followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the phone-recording evidence was properly authenticated	Haynes argues the recording lacked proper authentication	State contends proper foundation and duplicate admissibility	First assignment denied; recording authenticated and admissible.
Whether the taped calls were wrongly admitted as prejudicial	Recordings were more prejudicial than probative	Recordings were relevant and probative under Evid.R. 401-403	Second assignment denied; no abuse of discretion in admitting tapes.
Whether the trial court should have granted a mistrial over questions about prior acts	Questioning violated Evid.R. 404(B) interpretation	Questioning did not imply prior bad acts to show conformity	Third assignment denied; no mistrial warranted.
Whether denial of new trial based on a recantation was proper	Recantation credible and could affect outcome	Recantation not credible and coercion shown	Fourth assignment denied; recantation not credible and motion properly denied.
Whether prosecutorial misconduct in closing deprived Haynes of a fair trial	Prosecutor improperly referenced inadmissible testimony	Arguments within fair closing and not prejudicial overall	Fifth assignment denied; no reversible prosecutorial misconduct.

State v. Burnside, 100 Ohio St.3d 152 (Ohio 2003) (standard for mixed question of law and fact in suppression appeals, and de novo review of law applied to facts)
State v. Mills, 62 Ohio St.3d 357 (Ohio 1992) (credibility and factual findings on suppression reviewed for evidence authenticity)
State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2008) (authenticity of recordings and Evid.R. 901 standards)
State v. Were, 118 Ohio St.3d 448 (Ohio 2008) (Evid.R. 901 authentication and Evid.R. 1002/1003 framework)
State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (probinability of circumstantial evidence; Je ks standard for sufficiency via view most favorable to state)
State v. Schlee, No. 93-L-082 (11th Dist. 1994) (Ohio 1994) (discussion of sufficiency and weight standards in evaluating importuning)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (manifest weight standard requires exceptional evidence against conviction)