State v. McHenry, 2021 Ohio 3118

Defendant Donald McHenry was indicted for violating a protection order (charged as a fifth-degree felony based on a prior protection-order conviction). Trial was set for April 2021.
In discovery the State produced an expired ex parte protection order (March 8, 2019); the State later acknowledged it had inadvertently failed to produce the correct protection order (April 16, 2019) that formed the basis of the indictment.
Defense counsel prepared under the belief the indictment relied on the expired order and moved in limine to exclude the April 16 order when the discrepancy was discovered the day before trial.
The trial court found the State’s violation inadvertent but excluded the April 16, 2019 protection order as a sanction, acknowledging exclusion would effectively dismiss the case; the court declined a continuance, concluding another delay would be unfair to McHenry.
The State appealed, arguing the court failed to impose the least severe sanction; the appellate court reversed, finding the exclusion an abuse of discretion and that a continuance would have been a fair, feasible, and less restrictive remedy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court imposed the least severe sanction for the State’s Crim.R.16 discovery violation	The State: violation was inadvertent; the least severe sanction consistent with discovery rules was a trial continuance, not exclusion (which effectively dismissed the case).	McHenry: exclusion appropriate because defense had prepared for the expired order, opposed further continuances, and additional delay would be unfair.	Appellate court: exclusion was an abuse of discretion; court should have imposed a continuance as the least severe, feasible sanction.

Lakewood v. Papadelis, 32 Ohio St.3d 1 (discovery-sanctioning courts must impose the least severe sanction consistent with the rules of discovery)
State v. Darmond, 135 Ohio St.3d 343 (factors for evaluating State discovery violations and abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Parson, 6 Ohio St.3d 442 (discussing appropriate discovery remedies and factors)
AAAA Enters., Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (abuse of discretion defined — decision unreasonable, unconscionable, or arbitrary)
Ohio Furniture Co. v. Mindala, 22 Ohio St.3d 99 (preference that cases be decided on their merits)
Perotti v. Ferguson, 7 Ohio St.3d 1 (same principle favoring merits-based adjudication)
State v. Johnson, 169 Ohio App.3d 552 (appellate reversal where dismissal was imposed for an inadvertent discovery error instead of continuance)