Legal Opinion

In re D.M. (Slip Opinion)

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 2014No. 2013-0579PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Neill, J.

Introduction

{¶ 1} In this case, we are asked to clarify what evidence a juvenile is entitled to in discovery prior to a bindover hearing.

{¶ 2} In answering, we hold that Juv.R. 24 applies in bindover hearings. We also point out that a prosecuting attorney is under a duty imposed by the Due Process Clauses of the Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution and by Juv.R. 24(A)(6) to disclose to a juvenile respondent all evidence in the state’s possession that is favorable to the juvenile and material either to guilt, innocence, or punishment. State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83, 752…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Pennsylvania v. RitchieSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Kent v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  4. State v. DarmondOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  5. City of Lakewood v. PapadelisOhio Supreme Court · 1987

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State v. Aalim (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
  2. State v. MooreOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
  3. State v. Smith (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
  4. State v. FuellOhio Court of Appeals · 2021
  5. State v. E.T.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2019

15 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