Case Title: State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept. of Law

Citation: 1998-Ohio-128

Docket Number: 19980462

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-09-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[THE STATE EX REL.] EVANS, APPELLANT, v. COLUMBUS DEPARTMENT OF LAW ET 
AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept. of Law (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d 
___.] 
Mandamus to compel city prosecutor to prosecute charges filed by relator — 
Complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted, when. 
(No. 98-462 — Submitted July 8, 1998 — Decided September 23, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APD12-1723. 
 
Appellant, Charles R. Evans, a private citizen, filed affidavits under R.C. 
2935.09 with the Clerk of the Franklin County Municipal Court.  Evans charged a 
municipal court probation officer with one count of interfering with his civil 
rights, in violation of R.C. 2921.45, and charged his estranged wife with two 
counts of falsification, as proscribed by R.C. 2921.13(A).  The charged offenses 
are misdemeanors.  See R.C. 2921.45(B) and 2921.13(E)(1).  Appellee Columbus 
City Prosecutor decided not to prosecute the charges because of a lack of probable 
cause. 
 
Evans then filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.  
Evans requested a writ of mandamus to compel the city prosecutor to prosecute the 
charges.  The court of appeals granted the city prosecutor’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) 
motion and dismissed Evans’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted. 
 
This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
 
Clarence R. Evans, pro se. 
 
2
 
Janet E. Jackson, Columbus City Attorney, and Patricia A. Delaney, 
Assistant City Attorney, for appellees. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Evans asserts that he is entitled to the requested writ of 
mandamus pursuant to R.C. 2935.09.  For the reasons that follow, we find this 
contention to be meritless and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
First, as the court of appeals correctly held, R.C. 2935.09 does not mandate 
prosecution of all offenses charged by affidavit.  Although R.C. 2935.09 provides 
that a “private citizen having knowledge of the facts” shall file with a judge, clerk 
of court, or magistrate an affidavit charging an offense committed in order to 
cause the arrest or prosecution of a person charged, it must be read in pari materia 
with R.C. 2935.10, which prescribes the subsequent procedure to be followed.  
State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 272, 273, 680 N.E.2d 1238, 
1239.  R.C. 2935.10 does not place any duty upon city prosecutors to prosecute 
misdemeanors charged by affidavit filed under R.C. 2935.09. 
 
In addition, a prosecuting attorney will not be compelled to prosecute 
except when the failure to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion.  State ex rel. 
Master v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 27, 661 N.E.2d 180, 184.  Evans 
did not allege sufficient facts in his complaint evidencing that the city prosecutor 
abused her discretion by determining that the charges lacked probable cause.  See 
State ex rel. Murr v. Meyer (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 46, 47, 516 N.E.2d 234, 235, 
affirming the dismissal of a similar mandamus claim. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.