State ex rel. Shane v. New Philadelphia Police Dept., 90-184

• Citation: 56 Ohio St.3d 36,564 N.E.2d 89
• Decision Date: 12 December 1990
• Docket Number: No. 90-184,90-184
• Parties: The STATE, ex rel. SHANE, Appellant, v. NEW PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellee.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

Page 36

56 Ohio St.3d 36

564 N.E.2d 89

The STATE, ex rel. SHANE, Appellant, v. NEW PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellee.

No. 90-184.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Aug. 29, 1990.

Decided Dec. 12, 1990.

Appellant, Robert E. Shane II, was indicted by a grand jury on October 19, 1989 for his girlfriend's murder. Thereafter, Shane's counsel requested appellee, New Philadelphia Police Department, to release all public records relating to the homicide. Following the police department's oral refusal, Shane filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus under R.C. 149.43 in the Court of Appeals for Tuscarawas County to compel release of the records sought.

The court of appeals denied the writ of mandamus after finding Shane had another legal remedy under Crim.R. 16. Shane then appealed. On March 28, 1990, this court denied Shane's motion to stay his murder trial. Thereafter, a jury convicted Shane of murder, and the trial judge sentenced him accordingly.

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

Gerald A. Latanich, County Public Defender, for appellant.

Ronald L. Collins, Pros. Atty., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We hold today that a criminal defendant may not obtain a writ of mandamus under R.C. 149.43 to secure public records when he may litigate his right to obtain these records in his criminal case. Hence, we conclude the court of appeals correctly denied Shane's complaint for a writ of mandamus.

In State ex rel. Scanlon v. Deters (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376, 544 N.E.2d 680, paragraph one of the syllabus, we held: "A relator in a mandamus action seeking production of documents pursuant to R.C. 149.43 is required, as are relators in other mandamus actions, to show the absence of an adequate alternative to issuing the writ." In Scanlon, we denied mandamus relief when the public records could otherwise be obtained through the discovery process in a criminal trial. In State ex rel. McGee v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 59, 61, 550 N.E.2d 945, 947, we recognized that "[t]rial courts are fully able to decide R.C. 149.43 issues in any discovery process." See Henneman v. Toledo (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 241, 520 N.E.2d 207.

In State ex rel. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co. v. Merillat (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 152, 553 N.E.2d 646, we affirmed the court of appeals when it denied relief to a civil litigant seeking public records via mandamus. In that case, Hastings Mutual tried to obtain police investigation records in the course of discovery during civil litigation. The trial court quashed a subpoena duces tecum, thereby preventing public release of alleged public records. Thereafter, Hastings Mutual filed a separate public-records mandamus action under R.C. 149.43 to secure a copy of the police investigation records. We denied relief because Hastings Mutual had an adequate legal remedy, by way of appeal, for any wrongful refusal to release the records.

From these cases, we conclude Shane had an adequate legal remedy, criminal discovery, to test any right he had to obtain these documents as public records. Trial courts can decide R.C. 149.43 issues in the discovery process. State ex rel. McGee v. Ohio State Bd. of Psychology, supra; Henneman v....