State v. Lambert

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Lambert

1994 Ohio 388

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 24, 1994

Docket1993-0934

StatusPublished

This text of 1994 Ohio 388 (State v. Lambert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lambert, 1994 Ohio 388 (Ohio 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Lambert, Appellant. [Cite as State v. Lambert (1994), Ohio St.3d .] Appeal dismissed for want of final appealable order. (No. 93-934 -- Submitted April 6, 1994 -- Decided May 25, 1994.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 13483.

Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Brad L. Tammaro, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Enforcement Section; Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Bieser, Greer & Landis, David C. Greer and Sharon L. Ovington; Arter & Hadden and John P. Gartland, 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. Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., concurring. 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. 303(I)(D)(2)(d) is a well thought-out, effective rule which does not conflict with Crim. R. 16. Loc. R. 303(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. 303(I)(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. 303(I)(D)(2)(d).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State of Ohio, Appellee, v. Lambert, Appellant. [Cite as State v. Lambert (1994), Ohio St.3d .] Appeal dismissed for want of final appealable order. (No. 93-934 -- Submitted April 6, 1994 -- Decided May 25, 1994.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 13483.

Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Brad L. Tammaro, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Enforcement Section; Mathias H. Heck, Jr., Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Bieser, Greer & Landis, David C. Greer and Sharon L. Ovington; Arter & Hadden and John P. Gartland, 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. Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., concurring. 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. 303(I)(D)(2)(d) is a well thought-out, effective rule which does not conflict with Crim. R. 16. Loc. R. 303(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. 303(I)(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. 303(I)(D)(2)(d).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1994 Ohio 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lambert-ohio-1994.