In re D. M.
2013 Ohio 668
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- State appeals a trial court dismissal for failure to comply with a discovery order in a juvenile bindover proceeding (D.M.).
- Case involved a juvenile charged with an act that could be aggravated robbery if done by an adult; state sought to relinquish jurisdiction and bind over D.M. to the general division.
- Defense requested Brady materials and discovery prior to the probable-cause bindover hearing; state claimed it had provided Brady materials and that police reports were work product.
- Trial court ordered disclosure of two police reports (301, 527(b)); state refused; the court dismissed the case under Juv.R. 24(C).
- Appellate court held pre-bindover discovery is limited to Brady materials and the evidence the state intends to use at the probable-cause hearing, and that ordering the disputed reports was erroneous.
- Court remanded for further proceedings and discussed the need for an evidentiary hearing if privilege is asserted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of discovery before probable-cause bindover | State argued the discovery order was illegal if it forced disclosure of privileged material. | D.M. sought broader discovery beyond Brady and the materials the state intended to use. | Trial court abused by ordering 527(b) and 301 reports; discovery limited to Brady materials and evidence intended for probable-cause. |
| Privilege and requirement of an evidentiary hearing | State asserted privilege on the reports and work product. | D.M. contended privilege resolution required an in-camera review or evidentiary hearing. | Privilege issue not dispositive; when raised, the moving party must show a factual basis and the court should hold a hearing or in-camera review. |
| Sanction of dismissal | Dismissal was proper due to noncompliance with discovery order. | Dismissal was excessive given discovery misstep should be addressed with lesser remedies. | Appeal sustained the first assignment; dismissal was improper and the case was remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001) (establishes probable cause standard in juvenile proceedings and Brady rights)
- In re A.J.S., 2008-Ohio-5307 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2008) (limits on discovery prior to juvenile probable-cause hearings)
- In re A.M., 139 Ohio App.3d 303 (8th Dist. 2000) (discovery coextensive with probable-cause issues; pre-hearing discovery rights)
- State v. Gilbert, 2005-Ohio-2350 (6th Dist. 2005) (pre-hearing discovery limited to evidence to be used at probable-cause hearing)
- Peyko v. Frederick, 25 Ohio St.3d 164 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1986) (work-product privilege and need for evidentiary showing)
- Mastruserio v. Grace, 182 Ohio App.3d 243 (1st Dist. 2007) (necessity of in-camera review or evidentiary hearing for privilege)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (Supreme Court, 1966) (due process considerations in juvenile proceedings)