# Petition — Payne v. Ohio > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2155%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1979 - **Citation:** 440 U.S. 912 ## Text — $+—_+-+—_+- 1) ——— @& 4 44 Supreme Court, U. S } ‘ IN THE DEC 5 1976 Supreme Court of the United esenax, sn, c12R% | OCTOBER TERM, 1978 no. €8-900 ~ MAJOR EDWARD PAYNE, Pettittoner, VS. STATE OF OHIO, Respondent. PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE OHIO SUPREME COURT —=—————EEEeESESESESEESEeeeaeee_ BERNARD A. BERKMAN BERKMAN, GORDON, KANCELBAUM AND LEVY 2121 THE ILLUMINATING BUILDING 55 PUBLIC SQUARE CLEVELAND, OHIO 44113 (216) 781-5245 JAMES R. WILLIS BOND COURT BUILDING CLEVELAND, OHIO 44114 (216) 523-1100 Attorneys for Petittoner ‘ BROWNPRINT INC. — LEGAL DIVISION, CLEVELAND, OHIO 44113 (216) 621-2944 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) Page Page mn And Fourteenth Amendments — V , ; TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....... cetneewen Of The Action Of A State OPINIONS BELOW....... gil ha ACR. sad 2 Appellate Court In Altering The Charge Originally Brought Against An Accused In The Course Of Affirming His Conwviction...«... oesccccece 20 ; JURISDICTION. ... ccc cece cceesvcccececs 2 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW...... 2 map vache cn a 4 II. An Important Question, PROVISION L eer rrr ere . Decided By The Lower 6 Courts In A Way Probably STATEMENT OF THE CASE......cccccccces Not In Accord With Appli- 6 cable Decisions Of This A. Procedural History.........-. Court, is Presented Con- cerning The Constitutional B. Facts Validity, Under The Sixth And Fourteenth Amendments, 7 Of The Action Of A State Appellate Court In Affirming A Criminal Con- 14 viction On The Basis Of An Entirely Different Theory Of The Case From That Which The State Advanced In The Trial Court To Secure The REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ge) ae ere ee ae 28 l. The Theft in Office COMME GELOR. 0% 60 604008 oe ae 2. The Intimidation CORDES, «0 ¢ b.06.00 46 oe 08 3. The Decisions of the Lower Appellate COUPER 6 648666 b O68 0 8 6-0 HE Ce a? III. An Important Question, Decided By The Lower Courts In A Way Probably Not In Accord With Appli- cable Decisions Of This Court, Is Presented Con- cerning The Right Of An Accused, Under The Sixth And Fourteenth Amendments, To Confront The Witness ee ee ee 34 I. An Important Question, Decided By The Lower . Courts In A Way Probably Not In Accord With Appli- cable Decisions Of This Court, Is Presented Con- cerning The Constitutional Validity, Under the Sixth = £2 «@ — TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT. ) CONCLUSION... ccecceccces Terrrere eee APPENDIX (separately bound) Order of the Ohio Supreme Court Denying Motion for Rehearing......... worry ee ee Tee Order of the Ohio Supreme Court Dismissing Peti- tioner's Appeal of Right........ Order of the Ohio Supreme Court Overruling Peti- tioner's Motion for Leave to Appeal.....cccecceceses Order of the Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Overruling Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration...... Journal Entry of the Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, Affirming Petitioner's CONVICELONS. ccccccccccccccccseccs Opinion of the Court, by Judge Patton... ...cccccccves Concurring Opinion Of Judge Corrigan..cccccccccce Dissenting Opinion of Judge JackSoOn......e..e6. eee - iii - TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT. ) Excerpt from Petitioner's Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction, filed in the Ohio Supreme Court......... , Excerpt from Petitioner's Memorandum in Support of Application for Recon- Sideration, filed in the Court of Appeals, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County, Ohio........... » dy « 84 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. FED LEPOR) ccc ceac essence ceucseees ‘ 35 Bruton v. United States, SP UeSs 145 [EPCS cc coer vv cus eee 35 California v. Green, 399 Ube 169. (PTO censcecdass cceeeoe 35 Chapman v. California, SOO Uebe LE (ERT as cbedckenanwes 27,36 Cole v. Arkansas, 333 Vebe SPU. CANE caatumeceeasusaaeen 24,25,34 Coolidge v. New Hampshire, SUS Uebs GER Cael el «+46 been eekGas 22 Faretta v. California, G22 Uebe COO TERlOl ee a a Accordingly, this Court ought to review the petitioner's convictions because of the petitioner's serious constitutional claim under the Confrontation Clause which was rejected by the court of appeals and by the Ohio Supreme Court. CONCLUSION A careful reading of the thorough, cogent and persuasive dissenting opinion delivered by Judge Jackson of the court of appeals in this case (see App. 28-83) demonstrates clearly both the injustice suffered by petitioner in the lower courts and the substantiality of the constitutional questions presented by this petition. Accordingly, petitioner respectfully urges this Court to grant the writ of certiorari and accept this case for review. Respectfully submitted, BERNARD A. BERKMAN BERKMAN, GORDON, KANCELBAUM and LEVY 2121 The Illuminating Building 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216) 781-5245 JAMES R. WILLIS Bond Court Building Cleveland, Ohio 44114 (216) 523-1100 Attorneys for Petitioner December, 1978 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2155%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.