Title: State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. RUSSELL, APPELLANT, v. THORNTON, CHIEF OF POLICE, 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-
5858.] 
Public records — Mandamus sought to compel respondent to release public 
records to inmate — Dismissal of complaint affirmed — Inmate failed to 
satisfy requirement of  R.C. 149.43(B)(4) to obtain finding from 
sentencing judge that the information sought was necessary to support 
justiciable claim. 
(No. 2006-0526 ─ Submitted August 8, 2006 ─ Decided November 29, 2006.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Wayne County, No. 05CA0082. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a public-records 
mandamus case because appellant, an inmate, failed to comply with R.C. 
149.43(B)(4) by not obtaining a finding by his sentencing judge that the 
information sought was necessary to support a justiciable claim.  For the reasons 
that follow, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶ 2} In 2003, appellant, Robert W. Russell, was convicted of rape, 
attempted rape, felonious sexual penetration, gross sexual imposition, and 
kidnapping, and was sentenced to an indefinite term of ten years to life in prison. 
{¶ 3} In December 2004, Russell requested that the Wooster, Ohio 
Police Department provide him with copies of the following records:  (1) any 
incident reports and statements made by Sarah Payden, Wendy Russell, and any 
others involved in an incident on February 12-14, 1995, (2) a full transcript of a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
taped recording made by an Officer Quicii of a telephone conversation between 
Sarah Payden and Robert Russell, (3) any statements made by Robert Hoffa and 
the employees of Friendly Ice Cream on the above dates relating to Sarah Payden, 
and (4) any and all records pursuant to an incident at Wooster High School in 
which Sarah Payden was involved in a fight with two other female students.  
Appellee, Wooster Chief of Police Stephen W. Thornton, denied Russell’s request 
based on his belief that he was not required, under R.C. 149.43(B)(4), to provide 
the requested copies until Russell obtained an order from the court that sentenced 
him that his request was necessary to support a justiciable claim. 
{¶ 4} In August 2005, Russell requested that Thornton provide him with 
copies of (1) any public records and incident and offense reports pertaining to 
Russell that were maintained in Thornton’s files from January 1, 1995, until the 
present, (2) the record, incident, or offense report for a Robert W. Russell who 
had allegedly exposed himself in the early 1990s, and (3) offense and incident 
reports pertaining to Wendy Russell, Robert W. Russell, and Sarah Payden.  In his 
request, Russell stated, “I’m seeking records of a criminal investigation or 
prosecution, only offense and incident reports and any narratives thereto.”  
Although the request was not phrased in the way he wanted, it is clear that Russell 
intended to specify that he requested only offense and incident reports, and not 
records relating to a criminal investigation or prosecution.  Thornton again denied 
Russell’s request based on R.C. 149.43(B)(4). 
{¶ 5} In September 2005, Russell responded to Thornton’s second denial 
by stating that he was not seeking investigatory work product, but simply offense 
and incident reports, which he claimed were subject to immediate release.  Russell 
then requested that Thornton provide him with copies of (1) any offense and 
incident reports related to an exposure incident by a Robert W. Russell in the 
early 1990s, (2) any offense and incident reports related to a fight at Wooster 
High School in February 1995 involving Sarah Payden, (3) any offense and 
January Term, 2006 
3 
incident reports relating to Wendy Russell in February or March 1995, (4) any 
offense and incident reports relating to two Wooster High School students 
accused by Sarah Payden of sexual molestation, (5) any offense and incident 
reports prepared by the Wayne County Children’s Services, (6) offense and 
incident reports made by Sarah Payden in February or March 1995 and the 
transcripts and audiotape of a telephone call between Sarah Payden and Russell in 
February 1995, and (7) any and all incident and offense reports made by Wendy 
Russell in August, September, and October 1997 relating to Russell. 
{¶ 6} On September 21, 2005, the Wooster Law Director, on behalf of 
Thornton, again denied Russell’s request, based on R.C. 149.43(B)(4), because 
Russell had “requested a copy of public records concerning a criminal 
investigation [or] prosecution.”  The director stated that the statute did not 
distinguish between offense or incident reports and investigatory work product, 
and Russell had not applied to the judge who imposed his sentence for the release 
of the records. 
{¶ 7} On December 12, 2005, Russell filed a petition in the Court of 
Appeals for Wayne County for a writ of mandamus to compel Thornton to 
comply with the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, by providing him with 
copies of (1) any offense or incident reports pertaining to Robert W. Russell, 
D.O.B. 1-28-39, formerly of Miller Lake Road, Wooster, Ohio 44691, for 1993 
through 1997, (2) any and all offense and incident reports from 1990-1993 that 
pertained to a Robert W. Russell, also of Wooster, Ohio, who was cited for 
indecent exposure, (3) any and all offense and incident reports arising out of 
incidents dated February 14, 1995, to May 1995 as they related to Robert W. 
Russell, his wife Wendy Russell, and his stepdaughter Sarah Payden, (4) any and 
all offense and incident reports relating to the false accusations against two 
Wooster High School male students who allegedly molested Sarah Payden in 
January or February 1995, (5) any and all offense and incident reports relating to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
a fight at Wooster High School in which Sarah Payden was beaten by two female 
students after accusing their boyfriends of sexual conduct, (6) any complaints or 
affidavits filed by Sarah Payden in 1995 pertaining to Russell, and (7) any audio, 
with a full certified transcription, relating to a telephone call between Sarah 
Payden and Russell around February 14, 1995.  On December 20, 2005, Thornton 
filed a motion to dismiss Russell’s petition for failure to state a claim upon which 
relief can be granted.  Russell filed a memorandum in opposition. 
{¶ 8} On February 15, 2006, the court of appeals granted Thornton’s 
motion and dismissed Russell’s petition. 
{¶ 9} In his appeal as of right, Russell asserts that the court of appeals 
erred in dismissing his mandamus petition.  A court can dismiss a mandamus 
action under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted if, after all factual allegations of the complaint are presumed true and all 
reasonable inferences are made in the relator’s favor, it appears beyond doubt that 
he can prove no set of facts entitling him to the requested writ of mandamus.  
State ex rel. Talwar v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 104 Ohio St.3d 290, 2004-Ohio-
6410, 819 N.E.2d 654, ¶ 5. 
{¶ 10} The court of appeals based its Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal on R.C. 
149.43(B)(4) and held that Russell’s public-records mandamus claim failed to 
state a claim because Russell did not allege that he had obtained his sentencing 
judge’s finding that the information sought was necessary to support a justiciable 
claim.  R.C. 149.43(B)(4); State ex rel. Sevayega v. Reis (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 
458, 459, 727 N.E.2d 910; State ex rel. Rittner v. Barber, Fulton App. No. F-05-
020, 2006-Ohio-592, ¶ 14 (“although any member of the public may file a 
mandamus to compel, for example, a county clerk, to release public records, an 
inmate must first obtain a ‘finding’ from his or her sentencing judge that the 
documents are ‘necessary to support a justiciable claim or defense’ before making 
January Term, 2006 
5 
the request to the public official or office, who must then refuse, before the inmate 
may file a mandamus”). 
{¶ 11} Our paramount concern in construing a statutory provision is 
legislative intent.  State ex rel. Musial v. N. Olmsted, 106 Ohio St.3d 459, 2005-
Ohio-5521, 835 N.E.2d 1243, ¶ 23.  Determining this intent requires us to read 
words and phrases in context and construe them in accordance with rules of 
grammar and common usage.  State ex rel. Canales-Flores v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 129, 2005-Ohio-5642, 841 N.E.2d 757, ¶ 25. 
{¶ 12} R.C. 149.43(B)(4) provides: 
{¶ 13} “A public office or person responsible for public records is not 
required to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction 
* * * to obtain a copy of any public record concerning a criminal investigation or 
prosecution * * *, unless the request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is 
for the purpose of acquiring information that is subject to release as a public 
record under this section and the judge who imposed the sentence or made the 
adjudication with respect to the person, or the judge’s successor in office, finds 
that the information sought in the public record is necessary to support what 
appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.”  (Emphasis added.)   
{¶ 14} The language of the statute is broad and encompassing. R.C. 
149.43(B)(4) clearly sets forth heightened requirements for inmates seeking 
public records.  The General Assembly’s broad language clearly includes offense 
and incident reports as documents that are subject to the additional requirement to 
be met by inmates seeking records concerning a criminal investigation or 
prosecution.  The General Assembly clearly evidenced a public-policy decision to 
restrict a convicted inmate’s unlimited access to public records in order to 
conserve law enforcement resources. 
{¶ 15} Russell cites various cases from this court to support his contention 
that offense and incident reports initiate criminal investigations but are not part of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
the investigation.  See State ex rel. Rasul-Bey v. Onunwor (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 
119, 760 N.E.2d 421; State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer, Div. of Gannett Satellite 
Info. Network, Inc. v. Joyce, 97 Ohio St.3d 192, 2002-Ohio-5807, 777 N.E.2d 
253, ¶ 18, quoting State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Maurer (2001), 
91 Ohio St.3d 54, 741 N.E.2d 511.  However, the cited cases did not involve an 
inmate but were public-records requests by a newspaper and a criminal defendant 
during the trial process.  R.C. 149.43(B)(4), which sets out the requirements for 
an inmate to obtain public records, clearly was drafted to restrict the ability of 
inmates to obtain what would otherwise be easily obtainable by noninmates.  We 
hold that this court’s prior interpretations regarding incident reports and offense 
reports in the cases cited by Russell do not apply to cases involving inmates once 
they have been convicted. 
{¶ 16} Because Russell failed to obtain a finding from the sentencing 
judge that “the information sought in the public record is necessary to support 
what appears to be a justiciable claim,” he has failed to satisfy the statutory 
requirement for access to these records.  R.C. 149.43(B)(4). 
{¶ 17} Russell did not provide Chief Thornton with any evidence to 
indicate that he made an effort to comply with this statutory requirement.  In the 
absence of that evidence, Russell failed to demonstrate that he had a clear legal 
right to the remedy he sought in his petition, and Chief Thornton was under no 
clear legal duty to release the requested records. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 
dismissing the petition for a writ of mandamus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
RESNICK, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, J., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
January Term, 2006 
7 
{¶ 19} I agree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that R.C. 
149.43(B)(4) sets forth heightened requirements when inmates seek public 
records.  I disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that R.C. 149.43(B)(4) 
applies to this case because this case does not involve a request for records 
“concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution.” 
{¶ 20} R.C. 149.43(B)(4) provides that the public office or custodian of 
the records is not obligated to permit an incarcerated convict “to obtain a copy of 
any public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution” unless the 
requested record “is subject to release as a public record” and the sentencing 
judge “finds that the information sought in the public record is necessary to 
support what appears to be a justiciable claim of the person.”  According to its 
plain language, the heightened requirements of R.C. 149.43(B)(4) are manifestly 
inapplicable when the inmate requests a copy of a public record that does not 
concern “a criminal investigation or prosecution.”  See R.C. 1.42; In re A.B., 110 
Ohio St.3d 230, 2006-Ohio-4359, 852 N.E.2d 1187, ¶ 33 (“it is our duty to give 
meaning and effect to the plain language of the statute as set forth by the General 
Assembly”). 
{¶ 21} Russell primarily requested certain offense and incident reports.  In 
State ex rel. Rasul-Bey v. Onunwor (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 119, 120, 760 N.E.2d 
421, we stated, “Offense and incident reports initiate criminal investigations but 
are not part of the investigation.”  See State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing 
Co. v. Maurer (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 54, 56, 741 N.E.2d 511 (“incident reports 
initiate criminal investigations but are not part of the investigation”).  Based on 
this precedent, it is readily apparent that offense and incident reports are not part 
of either the investigation or the prosecution.  Thornton does not even contend 
that the requested offense and incident reports concern any criminal investigation 
or prosecution. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
{¶ 22} Insofar as Russell’s mandamus claim relates only to offense and 
incident reports, he is not requesting records “concerning a criminal investigation 
or prosecution,” and R.C. 149.43(B)(4) does not prevent him from obtaining these 
records.  Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals erred in dismissing 
Russell’s mandamus petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 
granted based on R.C. 149.43(B)(4).  I would reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals and remand the cause for further proceedings.  Because the majority does 
not do so, I dissent. 
 
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Robert W. Russell, pro se. 
 
Richard R. Benson Jr., Wooster Director of Law, for appellee. 
 
Frank C. Brown Jr., pro se, urging reversal as amicus curiae. 
______________________