Legal Opinion

State v. Moore

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 14, 1988No. 87-1709PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDouglas, J.

In this case, we are called upon to decide whether a prosecutor has violated Crim. R. 16 by not producing, pursuant to a defendant’s timely and proper discovery request, all recorded statements made by such defendant. Further, if such a violation is found, it must be determined whether the violation was prejudicial to the defendant in order to avoid the effect of the harmless-error rule.

Crim. R. 16 provides in pertinent part:

“(A) Demand for discovery. Upon written request each party shall forthwith provide the discovery herein allowed. * * *”

It is uncontroverted that appellant made a proper…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. ParsonOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. United States v. Musa F. IsaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1969
  3. United States v. SherwoodDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1981

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. State v. JosephOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State v. SpirkoOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. Brewster, Unpublished Decision (6-11-2004)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. State v. PenceOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. State v. JosephOhio Supreme Court · 1995

21 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