State v. Darmond, 2011 Ohio 6160

State and Darmond were jointly indicted on drug offenses; Darmond and Iris Oliver charged with trafficking and possession, with Darmond also charged for tools and endangering children.
A FedEx package interdiction yielded a package destined for Huntmere carrying marijuana, addressed to “Tasha Mack.”
A second package interdiction yielded another Huntmere package, addressed to “Sonya Byrd,” with similar packaging and handwriting.
Special Agent Stipek obtained search warrants for both Huntmere packages; contents mirrored the first, with a package wrapped in happy birthday paper containing marijuana.
Stipek prepared seven reports on seven packages; the five others were not known to either side and were not testimony at trial, creating a discovery issue and a defense motion for dismissal.
The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice for the discovery violation; the state appeals, arguing abuse of discretion; the appellate court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion for a discovery violation.	State argues limited sanction was required; less severe than dismissal.	Darmond contends dismissal with prejudice was appropriate to deter discovery violations.	No abuse of discretion; dismissal affirmed.

Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1987) (discovery sanctions must be the least severe consistent with the purpose of Crim.R. 16)
State v. Engle, 2006-Ohio-1884 (Ohio App. 2006) (discovery sanctions reasonable if not arbitrary or unconscionable)
State v. Jones, 183 Ohio App.3d 189 (2009-Ohio-2381) (discusses least restrictive sanction in Lakewood framework)
State v. Crespo, Mahoning App. No. 03 MA 11, 2004-Ohio-1576 (Ohio 2004) (distinguishes Lakewood in cases where the state’s discovery violation is involved)
State v. King, 2010-Ohio-5701 (Ohio App. 2010) (distinguishes whether evidence was inculpatory and the nature of discovery failure)