State v. Lawrinson
| Decision Date | 14 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1935,88-1935 |
| Citation | 49 Ohio St.3d 238,551 N.E.2d 1261 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellant v. LAWRINSON, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Steven C. LaTourette, Pros. Atty., and Ron Graham, for appellant.
Robert Troll Lynch, Cleveland, for appellee.
Gloria Eyerly and Roger Warner, Columbus, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Ass'n of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Mark R. DeVan, Patricia M. Walsh and David L. Doughten, Cleveland, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Cuyahoga Criminal Defense Lawyers Ass'n.
The sole issue is whether the state must provide a more specific bill of particulars upon a proper request by the accused when the state possesses the information. We find that under the circumstances of this case, the state must provide a more specific bill of particulars.
In State v. Sellards (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 17 OBR 410, 478 N.E.2d 781, we stated in the syllabus that "[i]n a criminal prosecution the state must, in response to a request for a bill of particulars or demand for discovery, supply specific dates and times with regard to an alleged offense where it possesses such information."
In Sellards we also stated that the purpose for giving a bill of particulars is "to elucidate or particularize the conduct of the accused," but not "to provide the accused with specifications of evidence or to serve as a substitute for discovery." Sellards, supra, at 171, 17 OBR at 412, 478 N.E.2d at 784. It is understood that an indictment or information is not per se invalid when dates and times are not included if such information is not material to the conduct charged or necessary to the defendant in preparation of a defense, see R.C. 2941.05, State v. Wilson (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 203, 58 O.O.2d 409, 280 N.E.2d 915, and a certain degree of inexactitude in averments is not necessarily fatal to a prosecution in cases dealing with sex offenses against victims of tender years.
A trial court must consider two questions when a defendant requests specific dates, times or places on a bill of particulars: whether the state possesses the specific information requested by the accused, and whether this information is material to the defendant's ability to prepare and present a defense. See, also, State v. Barnecut (1988), 44 Ohio App.3d 149, 542 N.E.2d 353. If these two questions are answered in the affirmative, then the state must include the information in the bill of particulars.
In this case, the state apparently told the trial court that it did not possess information relating to the date the crime was committed that was more specific than the period January 1 to January 31, 1985. However, the record shows that in March 1985, Linda Mangelo gave a statement to the Wickliffe police in which she complained about improper conduct between defendant and her son, Jason. In that statement she specifically stated that she took Jason to the doctor on January 24, 1985, and that during this period of time Jason and her daughter Melissa had permission to play with defendant's daughter at defendant's house. Linda's son, Michael, was not mentioned in this statement. However, this date is significant to defendant's case because the crime with which he is charged allegedly occurred on a day in January 1985 when Linda took Jason to see the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown, 2005 Ohio 5639 (OH 10/20/2005)
...and present a defense." State v. Hensley (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 136, 141-42, 571 N.E.2d 711,716 (quoting State v. Lawrinson (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 238, 239, 551 N.E.2d 1261, 1262). {¶48} If such is not fatal to an indictment, it follows that impreciseness and inexactitude of the evidence at t......
-
Armengau v. Warden
... ... convictions overturned or, in the alternative, to have a new ... trial granted. Having met with little success in state ... appellate courts, he now seeks federal collateral review in ... this Court ... This ... matter is now ... indictment are not material elements that must be proven by ... the prosecution. Cf. State v. Lawrinson , 551 N.E.2d ... 1261, 1262 (Ohio 1990) (“It is understood that an ... indictment or information is not per se invalid when ... ...
-
State v. Lambert
...at syllabus. Instead, a bill of particulars may " ‘elucidate or particularize the conduct of the accused.’ " State v. Lawrinson , 49 Ohio St.3d 238, 239, 551 N.E.2d 1261 (1990), quoting State v. Sellards , 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 171, 478 N.E.2d 781 (1985).DCONSPIRACY INDICTMENT{¶ 13} R.C. 2923.......
-
State v. Vitale
...is not material to the conduct charged or necessary to the defendant in preparation of a defense. See State v. Lawrinson (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 238, 239, 551 N.E.2d 1261, 1262; State v. Sellards (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 169, 171, 17 OBR 410, 411-412, 478 N.E.2d 781, 784 ("Ordinarily, precise ti......
-
Bill of Particulars
...v. Martinez, 4 Neb. Ct. App. 192, 541 N.W.2d 406 (1995), aff'd, 250 Neb. 597, 550 N.W.2d 655 (1996). 4. See, e.g., State v. Lawrinson, 551 N.E.2d 1261 (Ohio 1990)(holding that in a prosecution for gross sexual imposition of a minor, the State was required to furnish the defendant with a bil......