Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Flagner v. Arko

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 1998No. 98-487PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

Flagner asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ of mandamus. For the following reasons, however, we find Flagner’s assertion meritless and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Initially, Detective Arko had no duty under Crim.R. 16 to provide the request- • ed evidence. Crim.R. 16(B) requires the prosecuting attorney, not a police detective, to provide certain evidence in criminal discovery. Crim.R. 16(D) imposes a continuing duty to disclose on the state “prior to or during trial.” It had been over ten years after the conclusion of Flagner’s trial when he sought…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mootispaw v. EcksteinOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State ex rel. Fuqua v. AlexanderOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. WHIO-TV-7 v. LoweOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State ex rel. Carpenter v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 1995

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's OfficeOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State ex rel. Morabito v. ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 2012
  3. State ex rel. Miller v. Cuyahoga County Board of ElectionsOhio Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor's OfficeOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State ex rel. Flagner v. ArkoOhio Supreme Court · 1998

4 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