Case Title: State ex rel. Slagle v. Rogers

Citation: 2004-Ohio-4354

Docket Number: 20031671

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-09-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Slagle v. Rogers, 103 Ohio St.3d 89, 2004-Ohio-4354.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. SLAGLE, PROS. ATTY., APPELLEE, v. ROGERS, APPELLANT, 
ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Slagle v. Rogers, 103 Ohio St.3d 89, 2004-Ohio-4354.] 
Transcript of proceedings — R.C. 2301.24 — Party requesting copy of transcript 
of proceeding in action must pay official court reporter fees designated by 
court — R.C. 149.43(B)(1) superseded, when. 
(No. 2003-1671 – Submitted May 25, 2004 – Decided September 8, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-02-52, 2003-Ohio-
4162. 
______________ 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
When a party to an action requests copies of a court transcript of the proceedings 
in that action, R.C. 149.43 is superseded by R.C. 2301.24, and the party 
must pay the official court reporter the fees designated by the court 
pursuant to the latter statute. 
_____________ 
 
FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J. 
{¶1} 
Relator-appellee, Jim Slagle, is the Prosecuting Attorney for 
Marion County.  Respondent-appellant, the Honorable Richard M. Rogers, is the 
Administrative Judge of the Marion County Court of Common Pleas.  Relator 
routinely asked to inspect transcripts in the possession of the clerk of court for 
trials in which he was a party or to have copies of the transcripts prepared for him 
at cost, citing R.C. 149.43(B)(1).  In the belief that relator is obliged to pay the fee 
fixed by the court under R.C. 2301.24, respondent issued an order requiring the 
clerk of court to forward all requests by parties to a case for copies of the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
transcripts to the official court reporter for a statement of the fee for providing the 
transcript.  The order allowed nonparties to obtain copies of transcripts at cost. 
{¶2} 
Slagle subsequently made public-records requests for photocopies 
of portions of the transcript in the criminal case entitled State v. Saxton and for a 
copy of the audiotape of a suppression hearing in the matter of State v. Call.  
Judge Rogers denied the Saxton request and has not responded to the Call request.  
In response, Slagle filed the instant mandamus action.  The court of appeals 
granted a writ of mandamus, finding that pursuant to R.C. 149.43(C), Slagle was 
entitled to copies of any transcript filed in a court case and copies of any 
audiotape of proceedings, at the actual cost of reproduction. 
{¶3} 
The cause is before this court for final disposition upon the 
evidence and briefs. 
{¶4} 
The issue before this court is whether a party to a lawsuit may use 
Ohio’s Public Records Act to obtain, at actual cost, photocopies of court 
transcripts and copies of audiotapes.  Since we find that R.C. 149.43 may not be 
used to circumvent R.C. 2301.24, we hold that relator is not entitled to the 
requested copies of court transcripts at cost under R.C. 149.43(B)(1).  However, 
relator is entitled to a copy of the audiotape.  Accordingly, for the reasons that 
follow, we deny relator’s writ of mandamus in part but grant it in part. 
{¶5} 
R.C. 149.43(B)(1) provides that copies of public records shall be 
made available “at cost.”  Records of court proceedings fall within the definition 
of public records.  See State ex rel. Harmon v. Bender (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 15, 
25 OBR 13, 494 N.E.2d 1135 (holding that videotapes of trial proceedings are 
public records).  However, contrary to Slagle’s position, this does not necessarily 
mean that he is entitled to obtain copies of these records at cost. 
{¶6} 
In State ex rel. Warren Newspapers, Inc. v. Hutson (1994), 70 
Ohio St.3d 619, 625, 640 N.E.2d 174, we interpreted the phrase “at cost” as used 
in R.C. 149.43(B)(1) to mean the actual cost of making copies, “unless the cost is 
January Term, 2004 
3 
otherwise set by statute.”  Id., citing 1989 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 89-073.  By 
placing this limitation upon R.C. 149.43, we recognized that when a statute 
specifically sets forth the cost of making copies of records, that statute must take 
precedence over the “at cost” provision of R.C. 149.43(B)(1). 
{¶7} 
R.C. 2301.24 is a specific statute that governs the compensation to 
be paid shorthand reporters when a party to an action requests copies of 
transcripts.  R.C. 2301.24 provides:   
{¶8} 
“The compensation of shorthand reporters for making transcripts 
and copies as provided in section 2301.23 of the Revised Code shall be fixed by 
the judges of the court of common pleas of the county wherein the trial is had.  
Such compensation shall be paid forthwith by the party for whose benefit a 
transcript is made.” 
{¶9} 
Pursuant to R.C. 2301.24, the judges of the Marion County Court 
of Common Pleas established the following transcript costs:  $2.50 per page for 
the original and one copy to the requesting party; $2.60 per page if prepared from 
audio tape; $1.05 per page for a copy to other parties. 
{¶10} At Slagle’s request, the Attorney General issued Ohio 
Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2002-014, addressing the issue whether R.C. 2301.24 takes 
precedence over R.C. 149.43 when a party to an action seeks copies of transcripts 
prepared in the action.  In finding R.C. 2301.24 controlling, and in holding that a 
prosecuting attorney could not obtain a photocopy of a transcript previously 
prepared without paying the court reporter the designated fee fixed by the 
common pleas judges, the Attorney General opinion reasoned as follows: 
{¶11} “R.C. 2301.24 unequivocally provides that a court reporter is 
entitled to the compensation for making transcripts whenever the court reporter 
prepares a transcript for a party in a civil or criminal action in the court of 
common pleas.  * * * 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶12} “Because R.C. 2301.24 establishes the method for determining the 
amount that a party in a civil or criminal action in a court of common pleas must 
pay for a photocopy of a transcript, R.C. 2301.24 applies in such a situation, 
rather than R.C. 149.43(B).”  2002 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 2002-014, 2002 WL 
1336093, at *6. 
{¶13} We find this opinion persuasive, as well as a prior Attorney 
General opinion we cited in Hutson, 70 Ohio St.3d at 625, 640 N.E.2d 174, which 
further clarified this point by stating, “Where * * * a statute establishes a fee to be 
charged for copies provided, the statutory fee will control.”  1989 Ohio 
Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 89-073, 1989 WL 455411, at *5. 
{¶14} This rationale comports with the well-settled principle of statutory 
construction that “when two statutes, one general and the other special, cover the 
same subject matter, the special provision is to be construed as an exception to the 
general statute which might otherwise apply.”  State ex rel. Dublin Securities, Inc. 
v. Ohio Div. of Securities (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 426, 429, 627 N.E.2d 993.  R.C. 
1.51 codifies this rule and provides:  “If a general provision conflicts with a 
special or local provision, they shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is 
given to both.  If the conflict between the provisions is irreconcilable, the special 
or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the 
general provision is the later adoption and the manifest intent is that the general 
provision prevail.” 
{¶15} As applied here, R.C. 2301.24 is a specific statute that requires a 
party to an action to pay the designated fee to the court reporter when seeking 
transcripts or copies of transcripts in the action.  In furtherance of this statute, the 
Marion County Court of Common Pleas has set forth specific fees that parties 
must pay when seeking copies of transcripts.  In contrast, R.C. 149.43 is a general 
statute that addresses the public’s right of access in general to public records.  The 
General Assembly did not express its intent that R.C. 149.43 prevail over more 
January Term, 2004 
5 
specific statutes governing the cost of copies for parties.  Under these 
circumstances, we find that R.C. 2301.24 is controlling. 
{¶16} As to Slagle’s claim that he is entitled to have the State v. Call 
audiotape, he alleged in his complaint that he needed a copy of the audiotape of 
the suppression hearing in order to prepare for trial.  Although Judge Rogers 
agrees that the recording should be made available for reasonable inspection, he 
argues that Slagle should not be allowed to have the tape copied at cost under 
R.C. 149.43(B)(1).  Instead, he maintains that a party to the action is limited to a 
transcribed version of the tape, to be ordered from the court reporter for the fee 
fixed by the court. 
{¶17} We disagree with this position.  In State ex rel. Cincinnati 
Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 374, 662 N.E.2d 334, we held 
that tapes of 911 calls were public records and were subject to release under the 
Ohio Public Records Act.  In this case, Slagle is not asking to have the tape 
transcribed or to have a transcript of the tape copied for him—he is only 
requesting a copy of the audiotape.  Under these circumstances, he is entitled to 
the copy at cost.  However, if a party to an action seeks a transcription of an 
audiotape of a court proceeding, then that party is required to follow the 
procedure set forth in R.C. 2301.24 and to pay the designated fee to the court 
reporter. 
{¶18} Accordingly, we hold that when a party to an action requests 
copies of a court transcript of the proceedings in that action, R.C. 149.43 is 
superseded by R.C. 2301.24, and the party must pay the official court reporter the 
fees designated by the court pursuant to the latter statute.  However, where a party 
only seeks a copy of an audiotape of court proceedings, he is entitled to that copy. 
Judgment affirmed in part 
and reversed in part. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and 
O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jim Slagle, Marion County Prosecuting Attorney, pro se. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., James E. Phillips and Lisa Pierce 
Reisz, for appellant. 
 
McKenna, Long & Aldridge, L.L.P., Jeffrey P. Altman and Traci M. 
Vanek, urging denial of the writ for amici curiae National Court Reporters 
Association and Ohio Court Reporters Association. 
 
William F. Schenck, Green County Prosecuting Attorney, and Robert K. 
Hendrix, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging granting of the writ for amicus 
curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association. 
__________________