reversing prior interpretation of state records law that allowed criminal defendants to use records law to obtain discovery in addition to that provided by criminal procedure rules, because prior practice brought about "interminable delay" and "chaos" in criminal trials and state's discovery rules had "virtually been rendered meaningless"
How later courts described this case
- reversing prior interpretation of state records law that allowed criminal defendants to use records law to obtain discovery in addition to that provided by criminal procedure rules, because prior practice brought about "interminable delay" and "chaos" in criminal trials and state's discovery rules had "virtually been rendered meaningless"
- observing that interlocutory orders are neither final nor appealable but recognizing that “[a]n exception to this rule is the state’s right to appeal ‘by leave of the court to which the appeal is taken any other decision, except the final verdict, of the trial court in a criminal case * * *’”
- noting that a prior decision’s analysis of CLEIR exception for specific investigatory work product was “without citation to any authority except [State ex rel.] Beacon Journal [Publishing Co. v. Univ. of Akron],” which “did not deal with the specific work product exception” [emphasis sic]
- holding that "[d]iscovery orders are interlocutory and, as such, are neither final nor appealable"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8394 (2016)
70 Ohio St.3d 420, 426-427 , 639 N.E.2d 83 (1994), overruled on other grounds, State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus, 151 Ohio St.3d 425 , 2016-Ohio-8394
Overruled by State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St. 3d 343 (2013)
Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83 (1994), overruled by State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus, 151 Ohio St.3d 425, 2016-Ohio-8394, 89 N.E.3d 598 (2016). {¶43} Additionally, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Darmond, held that the balancing test announced in Lakewood for discovery violations committed by a defendant, "applies equally to discovery violations committed by the state and to discovery violations com…
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Larkins, Unpublished Decision (11-6-2003), 2003 Ohio 5928 (2003)
{¶ 18} Accordingly, Steckman is inapplicable to the instant case.
The opinion
Pfeifer, J.,
concurring. I join in the majority’s well-reasoned interpretation of R.C. 149.43 and Crim.R. 16 as they currently read. I also agree that Crim.R. 16 should be amended.
Without further delay, we should integrate relevant portions of Loc.R. 3.03 1(D)(2)(d) of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Criminal Rules of Practice and Procedure into Crim.R. 16. The local rule provides:
“(d) An information packet shall be delivered to the defendant’s counsel upon execution of a Demand and Receipt for the information packet. The information packet shall contain:
“(i) All police reports including the defendant’s prior criminal record;
“(ii) All -witness statements;
“(in) Any statements made by the defendants and/or by the co-defendant(s);
“(iv) All reports of examinations and tests that are made in connection with the particular case and are available to or within the possession, custody, or control of the state;
“(v) The names and addresses of all witnesses; and
“(vi) All documents and tangible objects which are available to or within the possession, custody, or control of the state, and which are material to the preparation of the defendant’s defense, or are intended for use by the prosecuting attorney as evidence at trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant.
“(e) No police reports supplied in the information packet shall be used for cross-examination of any witness unless it is properly qualified under Rule *441 16(B)(1)(g) of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rule 613 of the Ohio Rules of Evidence.
“(f) The execution of a demand and receipt for an information packet and the acceptance of an information packet by counsel for the defendant automatically obligates the defendant to provide reciprocal discovery as set forth in Section (I)(D)(2)(d) of this local rule and as required by Rule 16 Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure.”
This rule and its predecessors have functioned well for many years in one of Ohio’s most populous counties and should be applied statewide.