State v. Lambert, 93-934
| Decision Date | 25 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-934,93-934 |
| Citation | 632 N.E.2d 511,69 Ohio St.3d 356 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. LAMBERT, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 13483.
Lee I. Fisher, Atty. Gen. and Brad L. Tammaro, Asst. Atty. Gen., Environmental Enforcement Section; Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Bieser, Greer & Landis, David C. Greer and Sharon L. Ovington, Dayton; Arter & Hadden and John P. Gartland, Columbus, for appellant.
The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated and the appeal is dismissed for want of a final appealable order. The cause is remanded to the trial court for reinstatement of its order.
I regret that by finding no final appealable order in this case we have missed an opportunity to improve Ohio's criminal discovery rules. Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Loc.R. 3.03(I)(D)(2)(d) is a well thought-out, effective rule which does not conflict with Crim.R. 16. Loc.R. 3.03(I)(D)(2)(d) provides that upon defense counsel's demand, a criminal defendant shall be provided with an "information packet" which contains all police reports, witness statements, defendant's statements, and laboratory reports, and the names and addresses of all witnesses. Loc.R. 3.03(1)(D)(2)(d) has many beneficial aspects and no apparent downside. It prevents meaningless, resource-wasting "hide the thimble" games by the state in criminal matters. I recommend the statewide adoption of Loc.R. 3.03(I)(D)(2)(d).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson
...supra, the court of appeals in case No. 92-1758 expressed, in no uncertain terms, its feeling in this regard. In State v. Lambert (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 356, 357, 632 N.E.2d 511, Justice Pfeifer of this court in his concurring opinion made clear his feeling about openness of criminal discove......
-
Stevens v. Ackman
...Well, Inc. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 118, 676 N.E.2d 890; Hitchings v. Weese (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 390, 674 N.E.2d 688; State v. Lambert (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 356, 632 N.E.2d 511; State v. Crago (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 243, 559 N.E.2d 1353. This is so because by vacating for want of jurisdiction ......
-
Walters v. Enrichment Center of Wishing Well, Inc.
... ... (Polikoff v. Adam [1993], 67 Ohio St.3d 100, 616 N.E.2d 213, syllabus, and State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson [1994], 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83, paragraph seven of the ... See State v ... Lambert [(1994)], supra, 69 Ohio St.3d 356, 632 N.E.2d 511, and Horton v. Addy (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 181, ... ...
-
State v. Chinn
...16 and the theory of "open file" discovery of the type authorized by local rule (see, e.g., State v. Lambert [1994], 69 Ohio St.3d 356, 356-357, 632 N.E.2d 511, 511 [Pfeifer, J., concurring]; see, also, State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson [1994], 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 428-429, 639 N.E.2d 83, 89-......