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Distinguished by State v. Larkins, Unpublished Decision (11-6-2003), 2003 Ohio 5928 (2003)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
Wright, J.,
dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I think we have taken a substantial step back from State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 79 , 526 N.E.2d 786 , and its progeny. Further, I feel State ex rel. Scanlon v. Deters (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376 , 544 N.E.2d 680 , and State ex rel. Clark v. Toledo (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 55 , 560 N.E.2d 1313 , were just decisions and most certainly not to be rejected by this court.
A.W. Sweeney, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.