State v. Payne, 2013 Ohio 5230

Payne was indicted for rape and gross sexual imposition involving an eight-year-old between August 2001 and January 2002.
A one-party consent recording of a call between K.B. (then 19) and Payne was introduced, along with notes by Detective Lott.
Payne moved to suppress the recording; the court held a suppression hearing and admitted the notes as a court exhibit.
Trial proceeded with voir dire that included a Batson-related challenge; the court overruled Payne’s objection.
The recording and detective’s notes were admitted at trial; Payne testified in his defense; the jury found Payne guilty on both counts.
Payne was sentenced to 25 years to life; he appeals challenging the evidentiary rulings and Batson ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility and disclosure of the one-party recording	Payne argues the notes were undisclosed discovery material and the recording should have been suppressed.	Payne contends failure to disclose notes violated Crim.R. 16 and R.C. 2933.52, tainting the trial.	No plain error; admissibility upheld and discovery omission not reversible error.
Denial of Payne’s Batson challenge	Payne asserts the State’s peremptory strike of Juror No. 16 was racially motivated.	State provided race-neutral reasons; trial court found them credible.	Batson challenge overruled; no reversible error.

State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1987) (evidentiary rulings and preservation rules; plain error standard mentioned)
State v. Hauptstueck, 2011-Ohio-3502 (Ohio App.3d 2011) (discusses Crim.R. 16 and interception of recordings; notes discovery considerations)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibition on racial basis for peremptory challenges)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1995) (peremptory challenge rationale; neutral explanations need not be persuasive)
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1991) (defendant’s race not required for Batson challenge; review standard)