In re D.M. (Slip Opinion)
2014 Ohio 3628
Ohio2014Background
- D.M., age 16, was charged in juvenile court with an act that would be aggravated robbery if committed by an adult, including two firearm specifications; the state moved to bind him over for adult prosecution.
- D.M. requested discovery under Juv.R. 24 and Brady; the state disclosed limited materials (witness names, waiver, and statements) but withheld police report forms (301 and 527B).
- The juvenile court ordered the state to produce the reports; the state refused, claiming work-product privilege and that full Juv.R. 24 discovery did not apply to bindover hearings.
- The juvenile court dismissed the case without prejudice for the state’s failure to comply with the discovery order after continuances.
- The First District reversed, holding that only Brady material and evidence the state intended to use at the bindover must be produced; D.M. appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Juv.R. 24 apply to bindover hearings? | D.M.: full Juv.R. 24 discovery applies pre-bindover. | State: bindover is non-adjudicatory; full Juv.R. 24 does not apply. | Juv.R. 24 does apply to mandatory and discretionary bindover hearings. |
| What must the state disclose pre-bindover under due process? | D.M.: Brady and Juv.R. 24(A)(6) require disclosure of all favorable, material evidence. | State: only Brady material and evidence it will use at the hearing need be disclosed. | Prosecutor must disclose all evidence favorable and material to guilt/ punishment per Juv.R. 24(A)(6) and due process. |
| Are police reports (301/527B) discoverable or protected as work product? | D.M.: reports were ordinary police documents and discoverable; any privileged portions can be redacted. | State: reports constitute work product and are not discoverable. | Court: disputed documents must be submitted for in camera inspection to determine discoverability and allow redaction of privileged portions. |
| Was dismissal an appropriate sanction for the state's noncompliance without in camera review? | D.M.: dismissal was proper given the state refused to comply with court order. | State: reversal warranted because discovery scope was narrower. | Dismissal was an abuse of discretion absent an in camera inspection; least severe applicable sanction required. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83, 752 N.E.2d 937 (2001) (held Brady and Juv.R. 24(A)(6) apply to mandatory bindover hearings)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (bindover hearing is critically important and must meet due-process standards)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose favorable, material evidence to the accused)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (court may conduct in camera review to protect privileged material while ensuring disclosure of discoverable evidence)
- Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1, 511 N.E.2d 1138 (1987) (when imposing discovery sanctions, courts must impose the least severe sanction consistent with discovery rules)
- State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343, 986 N.E.2d 971 (2013) (rule that least severe sanction is required applies equally to discovery violations by the state)