reconsideration. If a party applies for both en banc consideration and for reconsideration, the proposed amendments require that the request be presented in the same document. The received several comments on the proposed amendments during the comment period. Revisions to the amendments clarify that the en banc court will not include full-time members of the appellate courts who recused from a case or who were otherwise disqualified from hearing the case. Criminal Rule 16 The Court has revised the proposed amendments to Crim. R. 16 in the manner suggested by the joint committee of criminal defense lawyers and prosecuting attorneys who drafted the original amendments. The revisions are as follows: exemptions to division (B) of the proposed rule which should have been included in the original proposal; Clarified division (B)(2) making it clear that only prior convictions of witnesses that are admissible in evidence would be provided not the entire criminal history of a witness; Included a reference to federal law enforcement agents in division (B)(6); Clarified that a prosecutor can provide both only” documents that have “counsel some redacted portions under division (D) in an effort to minimize the use of complete nondisclosure; and, Clarified, through staff notes, the general intent to limit release of statements of sex offense victims less than thirteen years of age when the defense has not yet retained an expert. Crim. R. 12(K) Crim. R. 12(K) is amended to accommodate the new interlocutory appeal granted under proposed Crim. R. 16(F)(2). No revisions from the previous version were made by the Court. Crim. R. 41 Proposed amendments to Crim. R. 41 permit applications and approvals of search warrants to be accomplished by electronic means, including facsimile transmission. Under the current rule search warrants may be issued only on affidavits to before “sworn a judge” which implies that the affiant and the judge must be in the same room. State v. (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 251, 490 N.E.2d 1236 and Wayne App. Wilmoth State v. Shaulis, No. 01CA0044, 2002-Ohio-759. The proposed amendment allows the judge to receive the oath or affirmation over the telephone and does not require that the proceedings over the electronic “reliable
reconsideration. If a party applies for both en banc consideration and for reconsideration, the proposed amendments require that the request be presented in the same document. The received several comments on the proposed amendments during the comment period. Revisions to the amendments clarify that the en banc court will not include full-time members of the appellate courts who recused from a case or who were otherwise disqualified from hearing the case. Criminal Rule 16 The Court has revised the proposed amendments to Crim. R. 16 in the manner suggested by the joint committee of criminal defense lawyers and prosecuting attorneys who drafted the original amendments. The revisions are as follows: exemptions to division (B) of the proposed rule which should have been included in the original proposal; Clarified division (B)(2) making it clear that only prior convictions of witnesses that are admissible in evidence would be provided not the entire criminal history of a witness; Included a reference to federal law enforcement agents in division (B)(6); Clarified that a prosecutor can provide both “counsel only” documents that have some redacted portions under division (D) in an effort to minimize the use of complete nondisclosure; and, Clarified, through staff notes, the general intent to limit release of statements of sex offense victims less than thirteen years of age when the defense has not yet retained an expert. Crim. R. 12(K) Crim. R. 12(K) is amended to accommodate the new interlocutory appeal granted under proposed Crim. R. 16(F)(2). No revisions from the previous version were made by the Court. Crim. R. 41 Proposed amendments to Crim. R. 41 permit applications and approvals of search warrants to be accomplished by electronic means, including facsimile transmission. Under the current rule search warrants may be issued only on affidavits “sworn to before a judge” which implies that the affiant and the judge must be in the same room. State v. Wilmoth (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 251, 490 N.E.2d 1236 and State v. Shaulis, Wayne App. No. 01CA0044, 2002-Ohio-759. The proposed amendment allows the judge to receive the oath or affirmation over the telephone and does not require that the proceedings over the “reliable electronic