Opinion ID: 2722142
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: {¶ 1} In this case we are asked to clarify what evidence a juvenile is entitled to in discovery prior to a bindover hearing. {¶ 2} In answering, we hold that Juv.R. 24 applies in bindover hearings. We also point out that a prosecuting attorney is under a duty imposed by the Due SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Process Clauses of the Ohio Constitution and the United States Constitution and by Juv.R. 24(A)(6) to disclose to a juvenile respondent all evidence in the state’s possession that is favorable to the juvenile and material either to guilt, innocence, or punishment. State v. Iacona, 93 Ohio St.3d 83, 752 N.E.2d 937 (2001), paragraph one of the syllabus. We further hold that it is an abuse of discretion for a juvenile court to dismiss a case for a prosecuting attorney’s failure to comply with a discovery order without first performing an in camera inspection of the withheld evidence to determine whether the evidence is discoverable under Juv.R. 24.