Legal Opinion

State v. Lawrinson

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 14, 1990No. 88-1935PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

The sole issue is whether the state must provide a more specific bill óf 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 *239regard to an alleged offense where it possesses such…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. SellardsOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  2. State v. WilsonOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  3. State v. BarnecutOhio Court of Appeals · 1988

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. State v. HensleyOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Erickson v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1998
  3. Alan Geboy, Petitioner-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Anthony Brigano, Warden, Respondent-Appellee/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  4. State v. AveryOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. State v. WhiteOhio Court of Appeals · 2017

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API