State ex rel. Corrigan v. Griffin

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; FRANK D. CELEBREZZE
• Citation: State ex rel. Corrigan v. Griffin, 470 N.E.2d 894, 14 Ohio St.3d 26, 14 OBR 328 (Ohio 1984)
• Decision Date: 21 November 1984
• Docket Number: No. 84-359,84-359
• Parties: , 14 O.B.R. 328 The STATE, ex rel. CORRIGAN, Pros. Atty., Appellant, v. GRIFFIN, Judge, et al., Appellees.

Page 26

14 Ohio St.3d 26

470 N.E.2d 894, 14 O.B.R. 328

The STATE, ex rel. CORRIGAN, Pros. Atty., Appellant, v. GRIFFIN, Judge, et al., Appellees.

No. 84-359.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Nov. 21, 1984.

Appellee, Judge Burt W. Griffin, was assigned to preside over the case of State v. Padavick, No. CR-174473, a murder trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County.

Between June 1982 and February 1983, several motions were filed on behalf of the defendant, Thomas Padavick, requesting discovery of information in the prosecutor's file. Hearings were conducted and partial discovery was provided, but not to the satisfaction of the defendant.

Ultimately, on March 14, 1983, appellee ordered the prosecutor to turn over to the defense the requested material, with certain exceptions. Appellee also ordered the state or, alternatively, the assistant prosecuting attorney assigned to the case, to pay to the defendant $750 in attorney fees as a sanction for failure to comply with the discovery requests. The order was journalized on March 15, 1983.

No motion for leave to appeal was filed by the state but on March 14, 1984, appellant, the Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, filed this action against Judge Griffin and the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County seeking the issuance of a writ to prohibit appellee from enforcing his discovery order.

The court of appeals denied the writ and the cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

John T. Corrigan, Pros. Atty., George J. Sadd and William Vance, Cleveland, for appellant.

Gold, Rotatori, Schwartz & Gibbons Co., L.P.A., and Niki Z. Schwartz, Cleveland, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

" * * * It is well-settled that in order for prohibition to lie, three requirements must be satisfied: '(1) the court or officer against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law; and (3) it will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists.' Ohio Bell v. Ferguson (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 74, 76, 399 N.E.2d 1206 [15 O.O.3d 117]. See, also, State, ex rel. Henry v. Britt (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 71, 73, 424 N.E.2d 297 [21 O.O.3d 45]; State, ex rel. Bell v. Blair (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 95, 96, 330 N.E.2d 902 [72 O.O.2d 53]." State, ex rel. Dow Chemical Co. v. Court (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 119, 120, 443 N.E.2d 143.

The court of appeals denied the writ, finding that appellee was authorized to enter the order in question and that appellant did not avail himself of the remedy which was available by way of appeal.

We agree. The trial court has authority to enter pretrial orders regarding discovery. Crim.R. 16. Moreover, appellant could have sought leave to...