State v. Pittman
Citations
- 2023 Ohio 1990
Syllabus
PROCEDURE/RULES – DISCOVERY – CONTINUANCE: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a continuance as a requested sanction for a discovery violation when the violation was not willful, the discovery requested would have aided only in trial preparation and defendant was not prejudiced by the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a continuance where the inconvenience to the litigants, witnesses and the court from the last-minute nature of the request and the defense's contribution to the circumstances giving rise to the need for a continuance outweighed the facts that the continuance was the first one requested and there was a good-faith basis for the request.
Judges: Winkler
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. AdamsOhio Supreme Court· 1980-05-07· cited 3,804×
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp.Ohio Supreme Court· 1990-04-18· cited 1,562×
- State v. UngerOhio Supreme Court· 1981-07-01· cited 1,145×
- State v. MorrisOhio Supreme Court· 2012-06-05· cited 478×
- State v. DarmondOhio Supreme Court· 2013-03-21· cited 392×
- State v. ParsonOhio Supreme Court· 1983-09-07· cited 351×
- State v. AustinOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-10-08· cited 21×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.