State v. McFadden
2017 Ohio 2728
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- The State appealed a trial court pretrial discovery order that required production of grand jury transcripts to defendant David McFadden and moved for leave to appeal.
- The appeal was taken under Crim.R. 12(K), which conditions interlocutory appeals of pretrial disclosure orders on a prosecutor’s certification.
- Crim.R. 12(K) requires the prosecuting attorney to certify (1) the appeal is not for delay and (2) the ordered disclosure will have one of the effects listed in Crim.R. 16(D).
- Crim.R. 16(D) lists specific grounds permitting non-disclosure, including threats to witness safety, substantial economic harm, compromise of ongoing investigations or techniques, child-victim statements, or that the interests of justice require non-disclosure.
- The State did not provide the required Crim.R. 12(K) certification showing either lack of delay or that any Crim.R. 16(D) grounds applied.
- The court concluded it therefore lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the State’s motion for leave to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over the State’s interlocutory appeal of a pretrial disclosure order | The State moved to appeal the pretrial order and sought leave under Crim.R. 12(K) | McFadden opposed the motion, arguing the State failed to satisfy certification requirements | The court held it lacked jurisdiction because the State did not provide the required Crim.R. 12(K) certification |
| Whether the State satisfied Crim.R. 12(K)’s certification requirements | The State did not certify that the appeal was not for delay or that Crim.R.16(D) applied | McFadden relied on the absence of the certification to oppose the appeal | The court required the certification and dismissed the appeal for noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Greer, 66 Ohio St.2d 139 (1981) (governs appeals from pretrial discovery orders)
- State v. Buckingham, 62 Ohio St.2d 14 (1980) (addresses limits on state’s interlocutory appeals)
- State v. Malinovsky, 60 Ohio St.3d 20 (1991) (Crim.R. 12(K) certification protects defendants from prosecutorial abuse and harmonizes interlocutory appeals with constitutional final-order requirement)
- State v. Bassham, 94 Ohio St.3d 269 (2002) (addresses scope of interlocutory appeals and related procedural requirements)