Evidence Rule 612


Franklin County Criminal Law Casebook

Reproduced with permission from:
Timothy E. Pierce and the Franklin County Public Defender Office

Evidence Rule 612 -- Writing Used to Refresh Memory
State v. Knott, Athens App. No. 03CA30, 2004-Ohio-5745 -- Tape used to refresh recollection should not have been played in the presence of the jury.  But court declines to reverse as plain error in view of the strength of the evidence.
State v. Wells (1992), 83 Ohio App. 3d 147 -- Crim. R. 16 controls over Evid. R. 612 as to production of materials used to refresh recollection.
State v. Woods (1988), 48 Ohio App. 3d 1, 4-5 -- Object of Evid. R. 612 is that the witness will testify on basis of refreshed independent recollection. The rule does not provide a ploy by which a party may introduce the substance of the writing when the witness has refused to testify.
State v. Byrd (1987), 35 Ohio App. 3d 100 -- While Evid. R. 612 requires production of writings reviewed during testimony, the court has discretion whether to order production of materials reviewed beforehand, to be governed by consideration of (a) the apparent extent of the witness' reliance of the writing, (b) the significance of the data recalled, (c) the burden on another party, and (d) potential disruption of proceedings.
State v. Cummings (1985), 23 Ohio App. 3d 40 -- No abuse of discretion found in refusal to allow review of police report witness read before testifying, but apparently did not refer to while actually on the stand. Also see State v. Wilson (1985), 23 Ohio App. 3d 111.

Publishing Information

Published by Timothy E. Pierce
Copyright © Franklin County Public Defender and Timothy E. Pierce, 2015
Contents may not be duplicated without express permission.