State v. Lambert
69 Ohio St. 3d 356
Ohio
1994
Check Treatment

Concurrence Opinion

Pfeifer, J.,

concurring. I regret that by finding no final appealable order in this case we have missed an opportunity to improve Ohio’s criminal discovery rules. Montgomery County Common Pleas Court Loc.R. 3.03(I)(D)(2)(d) is a well thought-out, effective rule which does not conflict with Crim.R. 16. Loc.R. 3.03(I)(D)(2)(d) provides that upon defense counsel’s demand, a criminal defen*357dant shall be provided with an “information packet” which contains all police reports, witness statements, defendant’s statements, and laboratory reports, and the names and addresses of all witnesses. Loc.R. 3.03(l)(D)(2)(d) has many beneficial aspects and no apparent downside. It prevents meaningless, resource-wasting “hide the thimble” games by the state in criminal matters. I recommend the statewide adoption of Loc.R. 3.03(I)(D)(2)(d).





Lead Opinion

The judgment of the court of appeals is vacated and the appeal is dismissed for want of a final appealable order. The cause is remanded to the trial court for reinstatement of its order.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.