State, ex rel. Clark v. Toledo

Decision Date05 February 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-397,91-397
Citation584 N.E.2d 662,62 Ohio St.3d 452
PartiesThe STATE, ex rel. CLARK, Appellant, v. CITY OF TOLEDO et al., Appellees.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Relator-appellant, Joseph L. Clark, sentenced to death for aggravated murder, has exhausted all direct appeals. State v. Clark (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 252, 527 N.E.2d 844, certiorari denied (1989), 489 U.S. 1071, 109 S.Ct. 1355, 103 L.Ed.2d 823. To support his petition for postconviction relief, Clark filed a complaint in mandamus under Ohio's public records law, R.C. 149.43, seeking records relating to his arrest and conviction. Previously, we reversed the court of appeals' denial of Clark's mandamus request and remanded this case for an in camera review of the disputed records and release of all non-exempt records. State, ex rel. Clark, v. Toledo (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 55, 560 N.E.2d 1313. After remand, the city claimed that only eight documents (altogether twenty pages) of the total two hundred seventy-four pages compiled in response to the request were exempt and, therefore, released the remaining documents. After an in camera review, the court of appeals exempted, in whole or in part, those eight documents, and ordered disclosure of the rest.

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

Randall M. Dana, Public Defender, David C. Stebbins and Dale A. Baich, Columbus, for appellant.

Keith A. Wilkowski, Law Director, and Samuel J. Nugent, Toledo, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Clark now asserts that the court of appeals erred in conducting its in camera review. We hold that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in how it conducted an in camera inspection of disputed public records. We therefore affirm.

In his first proposition of law, Clark argues that the lower court erred when it failed to individually describe each document and specify why each particular document was exempt. We reject that proposition.

Application of a statutory exemption to a particular document is best done by an in camera inspection. Henneman v. Toledo (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 241, 243, 520 N.E.2d 207, 210; State, ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., v. Cleveland (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 77, 81, 566 N.E.2d 146, 150. However, after an in camera review, a court need not individually describe each document and specify the applicable exemption. No such statutory requirement exists; none of this court's decisions in public records cases imposes such a requirement; and we decline to impose such an explicit requirement. To do so could defeat the purpose of the in camera inspection by publicly revealing information exempt from release. Moreover, how a court of appeals chooses to formulate its decisions is within the discretion of that court of appeals.

Additionally, Clark was not prejudiced by the lack of descriptions by the court. When the city claimed exemptions, the city generally described the documents and designated the exemption applicable to each document. In response, Clark asserted why a particular exemption should not apply.

In his second proposition of law, Clark complains that the court of appeals exempted some words in exhibit 7, although the city had failed to request exemption for those words. However, the court of appeals acted within its discretion.

Admittedly, a governmental agency asserting an exemption has the obligation to prove its application. State, ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co., v. Cleveland (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 79, 526 N.E.2d 786. Nonetheless, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • September 7, 1994
    ...147 (trial preparation and confidential law enforcement investigatory exemptions--postconviction); State ex rel. Clark v. Toledo (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 452, 584 N.E.2d 662 ("Clark II ") (postconviction relief); State ex rel. Coleman v. Cincinnati (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 83, 566 N.E.2d 151 (tri......
  • State ex rel. Johnson v. Cleveland
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • December 14, 1992
    ...logical conclusion need not be disturbed on appeal. State ex rel. Williams v. Cleveland, supra; State ex rel. Clark v. Toledo (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 452, 453, 584 N.E.2d 662, 663. In the second proposition of law in his cross-appeal, relator argues that notes taken by detectives during the t......
  • State v. Daniel
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • August 30, 1994
    ...abuse of discretion. See State ex rel. Williams v. Cleveland (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 544, 597 N.E.2d 147, and State ex rel. Clark v. Toledo (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 452, 584 N.E.2d 662. R.C. 149.43 provides, in pertinent part, as "(A) As used in this section: "(1) 'Public record' means any recor......
  • State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • March 4, 1996
    ...records only to turn them over to the person requesting them after a mandamus action had been filed. E.g., State ex rel. Clark v. Toledo (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 452, 584 N.E.2d 662. In some instances, there are legitimate legal questions presented by a refusal to disclose records that are pur......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT