Ohio Supreme Court, 1994

State v. Lambert

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided May 25, 1994 · Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

69 Ohio St. 3d 356; 632 N.E.2d 511

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (Ohio 1994)
Stevens v. Ackman (Ohio 2001)
Stevens v. Ackman (Ohio 2001)
State v. Chinn (Ohio 1999)
State v. Chinn (Ohio 1999)
Walters v. Enrichment Center of Wishing Well, Inc. (Ohio 1997)
Walters v. The Enrichment Ctr. of Wishing Well, Inc. (Ohio 1997)
State ex rel. Master v. City of Cleveland (Ohio 1996)
State v. Flanigan, 21460 (6-22-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Decker, Unpublished Decision (9-2-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
Drumm v. Drumm, Unpublished Decision (3-26-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Burnett v. Rite-Way Ser. of San Antonio, Unpublished Decision (9-17-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (Ohio 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated and the appeal is dismissed for want of a final appealable order. The cause is remanded to the trial court for reinstatement of its order.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Concurring Opinion

Pfeifer, J.,

concurring. I regret that by finding no final appealable order in this case we have missed an opportunity to improve Ohio’s criminal discovery rules. Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Loc.R. 3.03(I)(D)(2)(d) is a well thought-out, effective rule which does not conflict with Crim.R. 16. Loc.R. 3.03(I)(D)(2)(d) provides that upon defense counsel’s demand, a criminal defen*357dant shall be provided with an “information packet” which contains all police reports, witness statements, defendant’s statements, and laboratory reports, and the names and addresses of all witnesses. Loc.R. 3.03(l)(D)(2)(d) has many beneficial aspects and no apparent downside. It prevents meaningless, resource-wasting “hide the thimble” games by the state in criminal matters. I recommend the statewide adoption of Loc.R. 3.03(I)(D)(2)(d).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.