STATE v. PALMER, 109 Ohio St.3d 1403 (2006)

2006-Ohio-1703, 845 N.E.2d 521

State v. Palmer.

2006-0370.Supreme Court of Ohio.
April 12, 2006.

Portage App. No. 2004-P-0106, 2005-Ohio-6710.

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 3 of the court of appeals’ Judgment Entry filed February 13, 2006:

“Whether a defendant’s failure to timely respond to the State’s request for reciprocal discovery is a period of delay occasioned by the `neglect’ or `improper act’ of the defendant that tolls the speedy trial time pursuant to R.C. 2945.72(D), even in the absence of a Crim.R. 16 demand for discovery.”

Page 1404

RESNICK and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent.

The conflict case is State v. Larsen (Mar. 22, 1995), Medina App. No. 2363-M, 1995 WL 125577.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2006-0022, State v. Palmer, Portage App. No. 2004-P-0106, 2005-Ohio-6710.