Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Parsons

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided September 5, 1989No. 422Published

1ConcurrenceStephenson, Judge

I concur in the judgment and opinion except as to the disposition of the second assignment of error. The issue raised therein is essentially made moot by our conclusion that disclosure was not required. To the extent that App.R. 12(A) requires each assignment of error be addressed, I would overrule the assignment of error, assuming, arguendo, disclosure was required, on the basis that the dismissal was not an abuse of discretion under the circumstances, particularly in light of the refusal of the prosecution to produce the informant for an in camera inquiry by the court. See People v.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. People v. ViramontesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1978
  2. State v. WellsDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API