Title: In re Special Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Organic Technologies

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

In re Special Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Organic Technologies. 
[Cite as In re Special Grand Jury Investigation Concerning Organic Technologies 
(1995), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Public records -- Grand jury information filed with a presentence investigation 
report not subject to disclosure as a public record. 
 
(No. 94-1388 -- Submitted September 27, 1995 -- Decided November 15, 
1995.) 
 
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Licking County, No. 93CA00077. 
______________ 
 
Bricker & Eckler and Sarah J. DeBruin, for appellee Wiley Organics, Inc., 
d.b.a. Organic Technologies. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jeffrey S. Sutton, State 
Solicitor; Robert L. Becker, Licking County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kenneth 
W. Oswalt, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant state of Ohio. 
 
David H. Bodiker, State Public Defender, and Robert L. Lane, Chief 
Appellee Counsel, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Public Defender 
Commission. 
 
Gold, Rotatori & Schwartz Co., L.P.A., and John S. Pyle, urging affirmance 
for amicus curiae, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 
 
2
 
Terry L. Hord, Hardin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Lora L. Manon, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio 
Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association. 
______________ 
 
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated by the court of appeals in its 
opinion rendered on May 9, 1994, which we adopt and attach as an appendix to 
this entry. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 
READER, JUDGE. 
 Appellant Wiley Organics, Inc., d.b.a. Organic 
Technologies, appeals the judgment of the Licking County Common Pleas Court 
declining its request for an evidentiary hearing on its claim that appellee, state of 
Ohio, improperly disclosed information from a grand jury investigation: 
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 
 
“I.  The Licking County Court of Common Pleas erred in holding that the 
secret grand jury information contained in a confidential presentencing 
investigation memorandum became public record by virtue of filing the 
memorandum with the court. 
 
“II.  The Licking County Court of Common Pleas erred in denying Organic 
Technologies’ motion for an evidentiary hearing upon a prima facie showing that 
the state violated Rule 6(E) of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and violated 
a court order authorizing disclosure of grand jury materials solely for 
presentencing investigation purposes. 
 
“III.  The Licking County Court of Common Pleas erred in holding that the 
state of Ohio Attorney General’s Office could disseminate, pursuant to Ohio 
Revised Code  [Section] 149.43, secret grand jury information that was contained 
in a confidential presentencing memorandum filed with the Court of Common 
Pleas.” 
 
In April 1991, an explosion occured at Organic’s plant in Newark.  
Following the accident, a special grand jury investigation ensued.  The 
investigation did not result in indictment, but did lead to a plea agreement between 
 
2
the state and David Wiley, president of the company.  Prior to sentencing, the 
court issued an order allowing disclosure of information from the grand jury 
proceedings to the court, the defendant or counsel, or to the adult court services 
department for the sole purpose of preparation for the sentencing hearing and the 
presentence investigation.  As part of the presentence investigation report, the 
state included portions of the evidence presented to the grand jury. 
 
After the criminal case ended, the Secretary of Labor contacted the Ohio 
Attorney General to request documents obtained through the grand jury 
investigation.  The state moved the court ex parte for permission to disclose this 
information pursuant to Crim.R. 6(E).  The court granted the motion, but stayed 
the disclosure order upon a request from appellant. 
 
Appellant requested an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether the state 
violated Crim.R. 6(E) by improperly disclosing information to outside parties.  
The court concluded that appellant was not entitled to a hearing, as appellant made 
no prima facie showing of improper disclosure.  The court stated that the state had 
been permitted by the court to use grand jury information in pleadings filed with 
the court regarding sentencing.  The court held that once such pleading was filed, 
and the matters disclosed therein were discussed in open court during sentencing, 
the grand jury information contained therein became public record, subject to 
disclosure to outside parties.  The court concluded that as the state was required 
pursuant to R.C. 149.43 to release public records, appellant made no prima facie 
showing that the state violated Crim.R. 6(E).  The court denied the state’s request 
to disclose information to the Secretary of Labor, for failure to prove 
particularized need. 
 
3
I and II 
 
We address the first two assignments of error together, as they relate to the 
same issue. 
 
Appellant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing if it made a prima facie 
case that the state had violated Crim.R. 6(E).  E.g., United States v. Eisenberg 
(C.A. 11, 1983), 711 F.2d 959.  Crim.R. 6(E) provides in pertinent part: 
 
“Deliberations of the grand jury and the vote of any grand juror shall not be 
disclosed.  Disclosure of other matters occurring before the grand jury may be 
made to the prosecuting attorney for use in the performance of his duties.  A grand 
juror, prosecuting attorney, interpreter, stenographer, operator of a recording 
device, or typist who transcribes recorded testimony, may disclose matters 
occurring before the grand jury, other than the deliberations of a grand jury or the 
vote of a grand juror, but may disclose such matters only when so directed by the 
court preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding, or when 
permitted by the court at the request of the defendant upon a showing that grounds 
may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring 
before the grand jury. ***” 
 
The court erred in concluding that the grand jury information filed with the 
presentence investigation could be disclosed as part of the public record.  A 
presentence investigation report is not a “public record” as defined in R.C. 
149.43(A)(1).  State ex rel. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers v. Gosser (1985), 20 
Ohio St.3d 30, 32, 20 OBR 279, 280, 485 N.E.2d 706, 709, fn. 2; State ex rel. 
Hadlock v. Polito (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 764, 767, 600 N.E.2d 709, 710 (“[R.C. 
2951.03 currently requires that the sentencing report permit a defendant or counsel 
 
4
to read the presentence investigation report --- with the exception of specified 
portions of the report -- before sentencing.].  As a consequence, a presentence 
investigation report is not a ‘public record’ as defined by R.C. 149.43[A][1].”). 
 
As the information contained in the presentence report was not a public 
record, appellant clearly made a prima facie showing of a violation of Crim.R. 
6(E).  There was evidence before the court to demonstrate that the Ohio Attorney 
General’s Office disseminated grand jury information to persons other than those 
entitled to receive such information for sentencing purposes, including the 
publisher of a national newsletter.  The court erred in denying an evidentiary 
hearing. 
 
Assignments of Error Nos. I and II are sustained. 
III 
 
Appellant argues that the Attorney General is not permitted to disseminiate 
information contained in the presentence investigation report, because the 
Attorney General’s Office is not the keeper of such records pursuant to R.C. 
149.43.  This assignment is rendered moot by our decision in Assignment of Error 
No. I that the documents were not public records.  Assignment of Error No. III is 
accordingly overruled. 
 
To the extent the judgment of Licking County Common Pleas Court denies 
the appellant’s motion for a hearing, it is reversed.  This cause is remanded to that 
court for evidentiary hearing. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment reversed 
 
 
 
 
 
 
and cause remanded. 
 
WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN, P.J., and FARMER, J., concur.