Legal Opinion

State v. Finnerty

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 23, 1989No. 88-1720PublishedCited by 136 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

The issue before this court is when the prosecution, upon a proper discovery request, fails to furnish the defendant with the name of a known rebuttal witness, must the trial court exclude the testimony of the rebuttal witness?

Crim. R. 16 provides for discovery and inspection by either party in a criminal action.2 Crim. R. 16(B) imposes on the prosecutor a duty to disclose certain information upon a proper discovery request made by the defendant. Included in this rule is a provision for discovery of witness’ names, addresses, and records of felony convictions.

“Upon motion of the defendant,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. LongOhio Supreme Court · 1978
  2. State v. SageOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State v. JenkinsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State v. ApanovitchOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  5. State v. EdwardsOhio Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by136 opinions

  1. State v. HancockOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. State v. BeyOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Rigby v. Lake CountyOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. State v. CassanoOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  5. State v. AhmedOhio Supreme Court · 2004

131 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