Case Title: In re Grand Jury

Citation: 1996-Ohio-399

Docket Number: 19951334

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-08-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Grand Jury. 
[Cite as In re Grand Jury (1996), __ Ohio St.3d __.] 
Appellate procedure -- Final appealable order -- Denial of a motion to 
quash a grand jury subpoena decus tecum is not a special 
proceeding under R.C. 2505.02. 
 
(No. 95-1334 -- Submitted June 4, 1996 -- Decided August 7, 1996.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Washington County, Nos. 
93CA09, 93CA10 and 93CA12. 
 
Attorney James F. Dunn represented appellant Samuel Metz against 
charges of juvenile delinquency by reason of aggravated murder, aggravated 
robbery, and aggravated burglary. In the course of representing Metz, Dunn 
secured a taped recording of appellant Michael Elkins, Metz’s friend, allegedly 
confessing to the aggravated murder with which Metz was charged.1  Dunn 
revealed the contents of the tape to prosecutors during plea negotiations on 
behalf of Metz.  
 
Thereafter, prosecutors issued two subpoenas duces tecum to Dunn on 
separate occasions requiring him to appear before the Washington County 
 
2 
Grand Jury and produce the tape.  Although he appeared before the grand jury 
both times, Dunn refused to produce the tape or to answer any questions about 
it, alleging that such information was protected by the attorney-client privilege 
and the work product doctrine.  
 
Elkins’s attorney filed a motion to quash the subpoena while the 
prosecutor filed a “Memorandum in Support of Subpoena and Motion for In 
Camera Hearing,” which was, essentially, a motion to compel Dunn to produce 
the tape and answer questions before the grand jury.  The trial court found that 
there was no attorney-client relationship between Elkins and Dunn and, 
consequently, the tape was not privileged material.  The trial court also rejected 
Dunn’s argument that the tape was protected work product.  Based on these 
findings, the court overruled Elkins’s motion to quash, granted the prosecutor’s 
motion to compel, and ordered Dunn to produce the tape and to answer 
questions in regard to it.  Ultimately, the trial court held Dunn in the 
Washington County Jail for contempt of the court’s order when Dunn 
continued to refuse to produce the tape.  
 
3 
 
Elkins and Metz appealed the trial court’s order denying the motion to 
quash and Dunn appealed the trial court’s order holding him in contempt.  The 
Fourth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals of both Metz and 
Elkins.  The court held that Metz’s appeal failed for lack of standing because 
he was not a party to the proceedings in the trial court. The court dismissed 
Elkins’s appeal for lack of a final appealable order, finding that the denial of a 
motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum was not a special 
proceeding under R.C. 2505.02.    The court of appeals also held that the trial 
court did not abuse its discretion in holding Dunn in contempt.   
 
This cause is now before the court upon the allowance of a discretionary 
appeal. 
 
Michael G. Spahr, Washington County Prosecuting Attorney, Allison L. 
Cauthorn-Kreiss and Kevin A. Rings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for 
appellee state of Ohio. 
 
4 
 
David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Randall L. Porter and Randy 
D. Ashburn,  Assistant Public Defenders; and Pamela Prude-Smithers, 
Assistant Federal Public Defender, for appellant Michael Elkins. 
 
Warner & Warner Co., L.P.A., and Roger Warner, for appellant Samuel 
Metz. 
 
Cook, J.  In this case, we revisit the issue of final appealable orders and, 
in so doing, affirm the court of appeals. In Polikoff v. Adam (1993), 67 Ohio 
St.3d 100, 616 N.E.2d 213, at syllabus, we stated, “Orders that are entered in 
actions that were recognized at common law or in equity and were not specially 
created by statute are not orders entered in special proceedings pursuant to R.C. 
2505.02.”  Grand jury proceedings, having existed at common law, are not 
“special proceedings,” notwithstanding the fact that they have been codified. 
See State ex rel Doerfler v. Price (1920), 101 Ohio St. 50, 54, 128 N.E. 173, 
175; R.C. 2941.02 et seq. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
5 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and STRATTON, 
JJ., concur. 
FOOTNOTE 
1  Appellee notes that the record in Washington County Common Pleas Court 
case No. 95 CR 82 reflects that Elkins pled guilty to the aggravated murder, 
aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary at issue.