State ex rel. Fyffe v. Pierce, 88-929
| Decision Date | 30 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-929,88-929 |
| Citation | 531 N.E.2d 673,40 Ohio St.3d 8 |
| Parties | , 15 Media L. Rep. 2431 The STATE, ex rel. FYFFE et al., v. PIERCE, Judge. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Relators Daniel E. Fyffe, Jr. and Bret A. McVay are juveniles who were brought before the Juvenile Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Coshocton County by means of a delinquency complaint. The state filed a motion seeking that jurisdiction be transferred so that relators could be tried as adults, triggering the hearing process prescribed by Juv.R. 30. At the hearing required by Juv.R. 30(A), respondent, a judge of the Juvenile Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Coshocton County, found probable cause to believe that relators committed the acts alleged in the complaint and that the acts would be felonies if committed by adults.
Pursuant to Juv.R. 30(B), the court continued the proceedings for full investigation, pending a second hearing to determine whether to transfer jurisdiction from the juvenile division. On April 11, 1988, relators moved to exclude the news media and the general public from the second hearing. On May 11, 1988, the motion was denied. Thereupon, relators filed this action seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent respondent from "opening the second hearing."
Kincaid, Cultice & Geyer and Peter N. Cultice, Zanesville, for relator Fyffe.
Norman Davitt, County Public Defender, for relator McVay.
William M. Owens, Pros. Atty., and Brent W. Shenk, Coshocton, for respondent.
Frase, Weir, Baker & McCullough Co., L.P.A., Eugene R. Weir and R.Q. Baker III, Coshocton, urging denial for amicus curiae, The Tribune.
"In order for a writ of prohibition to issue, relators must establish: (1) that the court or officer against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) that the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and (3) that the refusal of the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate remedy exists." Commercial Savings Bank v. Court of Common Pleas (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 192, 193, 519 N.E.2d 647, 648-649.
Relators nowhere allege that they lack an adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, the writ cannot issue.
Assuming that relators had made allegations sufficient to state a claim in prohibition, respondent's denial of their motion was authorized by law. R.C. 2151.35 and Juv.R. 27 both provide: " * * * [I]n the hearing of any case, the general public may be excluded * * *." The word "m...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.R., In re
...court's final judgment and assign as error the imposition or nonimposition of a closure or gag order, see State, ex rel. Fyffe, v. Pierce (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 8, 531 N.E.2d 673, the Dispatch cannot do so because it is not a party to the action. Even if the Dispatch did have standing to app......
-
State ex rel. Connor v. McGough, 89-443
...remedy exists." State, ex rel. Largent, v. Fisher (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 160, 161, 540 N.E.2d 239, 240; State, ex rel. Fyffe, v. Pierce (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 8, 9, 531 N.E.2d 673, 674. In this case, Connor clearly meets the first requirement. Judge McGough is attempting to exercise judicial ......
-
State, ex rel. Kirtz, v. Corrigan
... ... Fyffe, v. Pierce (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d [531 N.E.2d 673]. In Fyffe, relators were juveniles. The state ... ...
-
State ex rel. Barclays Bank PLC v. Hamilton Cty. Court of Common Pleas
...408, quoting State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 160, 161, 540 N.E.2d 239, 240; and State ex rel. Fyffe v. Pierce (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 8, 9, 531 N.E.2d 673, 674. Intervenors concede that the first prong of the prohibition tripartite test is established. In this case, the ......