State v. Darmond
2013 Ohio 966
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Two defendants were jointly indicted and waived a jury; bench trial proceeding.
- State failed to disclose seven BCI packages seized from Arizona that were similar; five packages were undisclosed before trial.
- Trial court found undisclosed evidence could be inculpatory or exculpatory but did not determine which; it declared mistrial and dismissed with prejudice.
- Defense moved to dismiss, arguing undisclosed material warranted dismissal; state contended undisclosed material not exculpatory.
- Appellate court affirmed, not applying Lakewood balancing due to state-law distinction, creating a conflict that this court accepted for review.
- Ohio Crim.R. 16 was amended in 2010 to make discovery duties reciprocal; the issue involves whether Lakewood applies to state violations and whether dismissal with prejudice was appropriate under Parson and Lakewood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Lakewood apply to state discovery violations? | Darmond argues Lakewood applies to state violations to require least severe sanction. | State contends Lakewood applies only to defendant violations or that dismissal may be appropriate without balancing. | Lakewood applies to state violations; sanctions must be balanced. |
| Was dismissal with prejudice an abuse of discretion given Parson and Lakewood factors? | Dismissal with prejudice was a proper sanction given undisclosed evidence. | Less severe sanctions should have been explored and the record developed. | Trial court abused discretion; required weighing less severe sanctions. |
| Could the case be continued to permit further inquiry into undisclosed packages? | A continuance could have allowed complete disclosure and a fair trial. | Proceedings should not be prolonged to remedy discovery failures. | Remand for further proceedings consistent with balancing factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (1987) (trial court must balance and impose least-severe sanction; not deprive defense without weighing alternatives)
- Parker, 53 Ohio St.3d 82 (1990) (reciprocity and balancing of discovery sanctions by trial court)
- Parson, 6 Ohio St.3d 442 (1983) (three-factor test for sanctions by prosecution in discovery violations)
- Engle, 166 Ohio App.3d 262 (2006) (application of Lakewood balancing to state-discovery violations (3d Dist.))
- Siemer, 2007-Ohio-4600 (1st Dist.) (Lakewood-like balancing applied to state discovery violations (reciprocity under Crim.R. 16))