[Cite as Current v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2020-Ohio-1247.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

Terry Current, : 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 18AP-793 

 (Ct. of Cl. No. 2016-488JD) 

v. : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation : 

and Correction, 

 : 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

 : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on March 31, 2020 

 

On brief: Swope and Swope – Attorneys at Law, and 

Richard F. Swope, for appellant. Argued: Richard F. Swope. 

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Timothy S. Miller, 

and Amy S. Brown, for appellee. Argued: Timothy S. Miller. 

 

APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio 

BROWN, J. 

{¶ 1} Terry Current, plaintiff-appellant, appeals from the judgment of the Court 

of Claims of Ohio, in which the court granted judgment to the Ohio Department of 

Rehabilitation and Correction ("ODRC"), defendant-appellee. 

{¶ 2} From 2000 to 2007, appellant was incarcerated at London Correctional 

Institution ("LCI"). Joseph Rosebrook was also incarcerated at LCI, and appellant learned 

information in 2006 that led him to believe Rosebrook was involved in ordering the 

murder of a man, Dan Ott. Thereafter, appellant began to cooperate with Detective Keith 
No. 18AP-793 2 

Levan, from the Logan County Sherriff's Office, and Detective Juanita Vetter, from the 

Geauga County Sheriff's Office, regarding Rosebrook's connection to the murder. Matt 

Crisler, the investigator at LCI, facilitated discussions between appellant and Detective 

Vetter, as well as other inmates at LCI. Appellant continued to cooperate after his release 

in late 2007. 

{¶ 3} In 2009, appellant was convicted of a crime and, in January 2010, he was 

sent to the Orient Reception Center ("reception center"), where he claims he told the 

classification officer that he could not go back to LCI because it was common knowledge 

he was an informant. Nevertheless, ORDC sent appellant to LCI, although a separation 

order was put in place with regard to the two inmates appellant had informed against, 

Rosebrook and Carl Simons, whom he had been an inmate with at LCI during his previous 

incarceration. He also claims he told LCI prison personnel that he could not be housed at 

LCI, but ODRC took no action. Neither Rosebrook nor Simons were incarcerated at LCI 

between January 2010 and March 25, 2011. 

{¶ 4} After arriving at LCI, appellant got into fights with two different inmates, J. 

Farr and Daniel Weber. As a result of the Weber fight in February 2011, appellant went 

before the Rules Infraction Board ("RIB") and was placed in segregation for 15 days. 

{¶ 5} Appellant also informed on other inmates to a correction officer, John 

Burke. He told Crisler he learned that a current inmate, Chad South, who was an inmate 

with appellant for part of his previous stint at LCI, was the hitman for Rosebrook and had 

killed Ott. 

{¶ 6} Appellant alleges that, on March 25, 2011, someone posted on the prison 

library bulletin board an Urbana Police Division narrative supplement that outlined 

appellant's discussion with police regarding Rosebrook's murder-for-hire case and various 

crimes involving Simons. Appellant claims he informed a prison official that he believed 

Simons had directed that the report be displayed, even though he was at another prison. 

Later the same day, appellant claims he was assaulted by an unknown assailant(s) as he 

stood by another inmate's bunk. He told the dorm officer he had slipped and hit his head 

on the sink, and he went to the infirmary. Although he claims he confided in Burke, who 

was stationed at the infirmary, about the fight, Burke testified that appellant specifically 

denied being in a fight and said he slipped and hit his head on a sink. That same day, LCI 
No. 18AP-793 3 

officials learned appellant had been in a fight and they placed him in segregation. 

Appellant's sister, Alice Hauser, claimed she expressed concerns for appellant's safety to 

prison officials before the attack. 

{¶ 7} On June 16, 2016, appellant filed the current action against ODRC in the 

Court of Claims, alleging ODRC had negligently failed to protect him from being assaulted. 

The current case is a refiled case, appellant having voluntarily dismissed the prior case on 

June 25, 2015. On October 10, 2017, a liability-only trial was held before a magistrate. On 

March 20, 2018, the magistrate issued a decision in favor of ODRC. Appellant filed 

objections. On September 12, 2018, the trial court issued a decision overruling appellant's 

objections. Appellant appeals the judgment of the Court of Claims, asserting the following 

seven assignments of error: 

[I.] THE TRIAL COURT AND THE MAGISTRATE ERRED 

IN FINDING THE RECORD FAILED TO ESTABLISH, BY 

ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, THAT PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT WAS IN DANGER OF PHYSICAL ATTACK 

WHICH IS ERRONEOUS AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND 

THE EVIDENCE. 

[II.] THE TRIAL COURT AND MAGISTRATE ERRED IN 

NOT ALLOWING DETECTIVE VETTER TO ANSWER AN 

INITIAL QUESTION CONCERNING WHETHER 

KNOWLEDGE OF A PRISONER COOPERATING WITH 

LAW ENFORCEMENT PLACES THE INMATE IN DANGER 

OF PHYSICAL ATTACK IN PRISON. 

[III.] THE TRIAL COURT AND MAGISTRATE ERRED IN 

FINDING THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO 

ESTABLISH PRISONERS AT THE LONDON 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION WERE AWARE 

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT WAS AN INFORMANT (A 

SNITCH). 

[IV.] THE TRIAL COURT AND MAGISTRATE ERRED IN 

ADMITTING EXHIBITS 3 AND 4 FOR LIMITED 

PURPOSES, THE DOCUMENT HAVING BEEN PROPERLY 

AUTHENTICATED AS WELL AS CONTAINING 

STATEMENTS AGAINST INTEREST. 

[V.] THE TRIAL COURT AND MAGISTRATE ERRED IN 

EXCLUSING PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S SISTER'S 
No. 18AP-793 4 

TESTIMONY CONCERNING WHAT SHE TOLD 

DETECTIVE LEVAN CONCERNING PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT'S SAFETY. 

[VI.] THE TRIAL COURT AND MAGISTRATE ERRED 

WHEN THEY EXCLUDED TESTIMONY REGARDING 

INFORMATION PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT PROVIDED 

DETECTIVE VETTER CONCERNING A CELLULAR PHONE 

POSSESSED AND USED BY INMATE ROSEBROOK WHILE 

IN THE LONDON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION. 

[VII.] THE DECISIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE AND TRIAL 

COURT ARE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE 

EVIDENCE AND ARE CONTRARY TO LAW. 

{¶ 8} Appellant argues in his first assignment of error the trial court erred when it 

found the record failed to establish, by actual or constructive notice, that appellant was in 

danger of physical attack. In Literal v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 16AP-242, 

2016-Ohio-8536, we outlined Ohio law related to cases involving the same legal issues as 

here: 

To prevail on a negligence claim, appellant must establish that 

(1) DRC owed him a duty, (2) DRC breached that duty, and 

(3) DRC's breach proximately caused his injuries. Briscoe v. 

Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 02AP-1109, 2003-

Ohio-3533, ¶ 20, citing Macklin v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 

10th Dist. No. 01AP-293, 2002-Ohio-5069. "In the context of 

a custodial relationship between the state and its inmates, the 

state owes a common-law duty of reasonable care and 

protection from unreasonable risks of physical harm." 

McElfresh v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 04AP177, 2004-Ohio-5545, ¶ 16, citing Woods v. Dept. of Rehab. & 

Corr., 130 Ohio App.3d 742, 744-45, 721 N.E.2d 143 (10th 

Dist.1998). "Reasonable care is that degree of caution and 

foresight an ordinarily prudent person would employ in 

similar circumstances." McElfresh at ¶ 16. The state's duty of 

reasonable care does not render it an insurer of inmate safety. 

Williams v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 67 Ohio App.3d 517, 526, 

587 N.E.2d 870 (10th Dist.1990), citing Clemets v. Heston, 20 

Ohio App.3d 132, 20 Ohio B. 166, 485 N.E.2d 287 (6th 

Dist.1985). "However, 'once [the state] becomes aware of a 

dangerous condition[,] it must take reasonable care to prevent 

injury to the inmate.' " Watson v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 

10th Dist. No. 11AP-606, 2012-Ohio-1017, ¶ 8, quoting Briscoe
No. 18AP-793 5 

at ¶ 20, citing Williams v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 61 Ohio 

Misc.2d 699, 583 N.E.2d 1129 (1991). 

The law of this district with regard to DRC liability for an 

assault by one inmate on another has been established in a 

number of decisions of this court including Baker v. Dept. of 

Rehab. & Corr., 28 Ohio App.3d 99, 28 Ohio B. 142, 502 

N.E.2d 261 (10th Dist.1986); Watson; and Allen v. Dept. of 

Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 14AP-619, 2015-Ohio-383. 

Here, appellant alleges that DRC was negligent in failing to 

prevent the assault by Sholler. In Watson, this court reiterated 

the legal standard applicable to such claims as follows: 

The law is well-settled in Ohio that ODRC is not liable for the 

intentional attack of one inmate by another, unless ODRC has 

adequate notice of an impending assault. Mitchell v. Ohio 

Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 107 Ohio App.3d 231, 235, 668 

N.E.2d 538 (10th Dist.1995), citing Baker v. State, Dept. of 

Rehab. & Corr., 28 Ohio App.3d 99, 28 Ohio B. 142, 502 

N.E.2d 261 (10th Dist.1986). Notice may be actual or 

constructive, the distinction being the manner in which the 

notice is obtained rather than the amount of information 

obtained. Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. 

No. 09AP-1052, 2010-Ohio-4736, ¶ 14. Actual notice exists 

where the information was personally communicated to or 

received by the party. Id. "Constructive notice is that notice 

which the law regards as sufficient to give notice and is 

regarded as a substitute for actual notice." Id., citing In Re 

Estate of Fahle, 90 Ohio App. 195, 197, 105 N.E.2d 429 (6th 

Dist.1950). 

Id. at ¶ 9. See also Allen at ¶ 18. 

Id. at ¶ 15-16. 

{¶ 9} In the present case, appellant argues the record demonstrates ODRC's 

actual, as well as constructive, notice that he was in danger because he was a known police 

informant. Appellant asserts ODRC had actual and constructive notice that he was a 

"snitch," and his information related to Rosebrook, a prisoner who remained in the system 

and was being pursued by two counties for two murders. Appellant claims the following 

supports a finding of actual or constructive notice: (1) it was reasonably foreseeable that 

refusing to move him out of LCI would cause an attack, as it did three times, (2) Simons 
No. 18AP-793 6 

and Rosebrook knew he was providing information about them, (3) LCI knew he was 

cooperating with police, (4) Crisler's lack of memory of meetings and information 

corroborates his testimony that he told Crisler he was afraid and why, (5) Crisler admitted 

he could remember one case where an inmate who acted for law enforcement had been 

threatened, and (6) constant visits with law enforcement made it obvious to the prison 

population that he was an informant. 

{¶ 10} The Court of Claims held the evidence does not demonstrate that ODRC had 

sufficient notice to be liable for appellant's injuries from the attack. The court found 

appellant's contention that he told employees his presence at LCI posed a danger to him 

was belied by other evidence and lacked credibility. The court pointed out there was no 

record that he voiced any safety concerns to the RIB, the reception center, or prison 

officials in institutional kites or grievances, and appellant admitted he had memory 

problems. The court found it unlikely that he would have divulged his safety concerns after 

the less serious altercations, given that he gave a false story regarding the present, more 

serious attack. Furthermore, despite appellant's claim that the earlier altercations should 

have put ODRC on notice that he was being targeted as an informant, he did not tell any 

officials, and they did not have reason to know of an impending attack from his mere 

involvement in altercations. The court also reasoned that appellant's actions in continuing 

to inform on his current inmates, his statement to Detective Vetter that he would not seek 

to transfer out of LCI until months later even though South was still an inmate, and his 

disinclination to enter protective control showed that appellant did not believe he was in 

the degree of danger he claims. The Court of Claims further found appellant admitted that 

police and prison staff explained to him what he should do if he felt threatened, but neither 

appellant nor his sister expressed safety concerns or requested protective control or a 

transfer until after the attack. There was also no evidence that any inmates knew he was an 

informant, called him a snitch, or threatened him for being an informant. 

{¶ 11} After reviewing the testimony and evidence presented at trial, we find 

appellant failed to demonstrate ODRC had actual or constructive notice that he was in 

danger of attack based upon his informing on Rosebrook and Simons. The only testimony 

that supported actual or constructive knowledge by ODRC employees came from appellant 

himself, and none of it was corroborated with any other testimony or evidence. Appellant's 
No. 18AP-793 7 

pertinent testimony was as follows. Appellant testified that while he was out of prison in 

2008, several newspapers and news stations publicized that he was an informant in 

Rosebrook's murder case. About six months later, he was convicted of other charges and 

he said he told the classification officer at the reception center that he did not feel safe 

going back to LCI because of Rosebrook and Simons, even though they were not 

imprisoned at LCI, as well as the newspaper and news broadcasts identifying him as an 

informant, but he was sent to LCI anyway. He stated everyone at LCI was familiar with 

him when he returned to LCI, and they knew he was an informant. When he returned to 

LCI, he was placed four beds away from South, the hitman hired by Rosebrook, although 

appellant admitted he did not mention South to the classification officer at the reception 

center because he was not sure South was the hitman at the time. Appellant said South 

admitted to him he was the hitman and told him that Rosebrook was mad at appellant. 

Appellant testified he told Crisler about what South had said. He admittedly told Crisler he 

was not afraid of South, but he also told Crisler that he thought Rosebrook might be able to 

recruit someone to harm him at LCI. Appellant also testified that he was moved to another 

prison for about six weeks while he was to testify in a trial, but afterward, he agreed to go 

back to LCI for several months while South was still there; however, appellant claimed this 

was on the condition that after South left, they would move him to another prison. When 

he returned to LCI, he got into a fight with Weber and he claims he told the RIB that the 

fight was because he was an informant, although he admitted the RIB disposition did not 

mention such. Appellant stated he told Crisler in early 2011 that he felt unsafe, and Crisler 

told him that if he ever felt unsafe he could come see him and he would get appellant out of 

LCI. He testified that in April or May 2010, he gave Mark Harper, an LCI unit manager, 

letters from Simons discussing Simon's anger with appellant's trial testimony, and 

appellant told him he did not feel safe at LCI. Harper said he would put in a transfer 

request and put him in segregation, but appellant did not want to go into segregation. 

Harper was fired within two weeks of their conversation, and he could not remember if he 

talked to Harper's replacement, Ken Berry, about his safety. After the first assault, he told 

his sister to contact Detective Levan to tell him he was scared, and Detective Levan said 

that he was too busy with another case but would try to help him when he got a chance. He 

stated he asked his sister to tell Detective Vetter he was scared after the first fight, but he 
No. 18AP-793 8 

did not provide details. He claimed he told the RIB the fight with Weber was in retaliation 

for his being an informant on the Rosebrook case, but he admitted that the RIB disposition 

did not mention the fight. He also admitted he could have stayed in segregation after the 

Weber fight if he feared for his safety. He stated that he did not want to stay in segregation 

because inmates have limited privileges, it is dirty, and he did not want to be cornered 

there by a cellmate. During his testimony, he admitted he had memory problems and had 

difficultly remembering dates. 

{¶ 12} However, the testimony from the other trial witnesses failed to corroborate 

appellant's claims that ODRC had actual or constructive notice. Hauser, appellant's sister, 

testified that when appellant first returned to LCI, she spoke to Detectives Vetter and 

Levan about his safety, but there was no evidence that Detectives Vetter or Levan 

communicated this to anyone at ODRC. She stated she wrote letters to several people 

about appellant's safety but she did not know whether she sent them before or after the 

assault. Overall, as noted by the Court of Claims, her testimony was vague regarding to 

whom she spoke and when. 

{¶ 13} Detective Vetter testified that prior to the attack of March 25, 2011, 

appellant's sister had expressed worry and concern to her about appellant's safety, but she 

told her to tell appellant not to jeopardize his safety for the sake of the murder 

investigation. Detective Vetter stated she worked with a number of inmate informants and 

some of them are in jeopardy. However, she stated some do not care if others know they 

are informants while others do. She testified appellant never personally expressed to her 

that he felt he was in danger. Importantly, she did not testify that she informed ODRC of 

Hauser's concerns. 

{¶ 14} Burke, the correctional officer who works at the infirmary at LCI, testified 

appellant told him he slipped and hit the sink but denied he was in a fight the day of the 

attack. He also stated appellant would tell him about inmates who were making alcohol or 

possessed drugs. 

{¶ 15} Crisler, the lead investigator at LCI, testified that after he learned appellant 

was an informant on the Rosebrook case during his first stint at LCI, he told appellant to 

come to him, the captain, or any officer if he felt unsafe. Before the attack during his 

second stint, neither appellant nor his family members told him appellant feared for his 
No. 18AP-793 9 

safety. He also did not receive any communication from Detective Vetter prior to the 

attack regarding appellant's safety. He has only once investigated a case when an inmate is 

being threatened because the inmate was an informant, and that case was after appellant's 

attack. During appellant's first stint, appellant's sister did not express any concern about 

appellant's safety. He did not recall anyone expressing concerns for appellant's safety 

before appellant was attacked in March 2011. 

{¶ 16} Berry, a unit manager at LCI, testified he spoke to Crisler about appellant's 

concerns around the time of the attack but could not remember if it was before or after. He 

stated that in a protective custody interview assessment he completed after the attack, he 

wrote that appellant had never been threated before for being an informant. During 2010, 

he never heard anything regarding appellant being threatened. Prior to the attack, neither 

appellant nor anyone else came to him and said they were concerned for appellant's safety. 

He testified that nothing was safer than segregation in a prison, and if appellant was in 

protective custody, he would have been in a cell by himself. He also listened to the 

recording of the RIB hearing after the first fight and testified the RIB disposition, which 

did not mention any claim of retaliation for appellant being an informant, is essentially the 

same as what transpired at the hearing. He was never able to connect the first fight and the 

attack. 

{¶ 17} After reviewing the above testimony, we are unable to find any evidence 

appellant informed ODRC that he feared for his safety based on his being an informant 

prior to his attack, such that ODRC had constructive or actual knowledge of an impending 

assault. Appellant provided the only testimony that he expressed any fear for his safety to 

ODRC employees, including the RIB, prior to the attack. None of the ODRC employees 

recalled appellant expressing any fear for his safety prior to the attack, and none of the 

non-ODRC employees recalled communicating to ODRC that appellant feared for his 

safety. In fact, Berry wrote in the protective custody investigation that appellant denied he 

had ever been threatened based on his informing. Furthermore, appellant refused ODRC 

offers to enter segregation and protective custody and continued to inform on inmates 

about contraband, which would not provide any indication to ODRC that appellant feared 

for his safety. Therefore, we find there was no evidence ODRC had adequate actual or 
No. 18AP-793 10 

constructive notice of an impending assault, and appellant's negligence claim must fail. 

For this reason, we overrule appellant's first assignment of error. 

{¶ 18} Appellant argues in his second assignment of error the Court of Claims 

erred when it did not allow Detective Vetter to answer an initial question concerning 

whether knowledge of a prisoner cooperating with law enforcement places the inmate in 

danger of a physical attack in prison. Pursuant to Evid.R. 701, "a witness who has not been 

qualified as an expert may testify as to opinions that are '(1) rationally based on the 

perception of the witness[,] and (2) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' 

testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.' " State v. Neil, 10th Dist. No. 14AP-981, 

2016-Ohio-4762, ¶ 71. 

{¶ 19} Here, Detective Vetter was asked whether she was aware that known 

informants are in considerable danger in a prison. Vetter managed to answer "[r]ight," 

before an objection was raised on the ground of speculation. The magistrate asked counsel 

to rephrase the question, which resulted in another objection based on grounds of 

relevancy and that she was not an expert. The magistrate stated the opinion would be a lay 

opinion, and counsel eventually asked the same question, which elicited another objection 

on relevancy. Over objection, Detective Vetter was then allowed to answer whether she had 

an opinion on the matter, and Vetter responded that some inmates are in jeopardy because 

they are informants, but some inmates do not care if others know they are informants, 

while others do care. Detective Vetter ultimately stated she did not have an opinion on 

whether being an informant automatically puts an inmate in jeopardy. Based upon this 

statement, counsel for ODRC stated he did not have any objection and believed it mooted 

the entire issue because Detective Vetter did not have an opinion. 

{¶ 20} Appellant's argument herein is that the magistrate should have accepted the 

first opinion by Detective Vetter, when she responded "[r]ight," instead of concluding 

Vetter did not have an opinion. Appellant asserts Vetter should have been able to testify 

unburdened by three transcript pages of argument in her presence. 

{¶ 21} We find no error. Although appellant claims the magistrate erred when he 

excluded and did not consider Detective Vetter's initial "[r]ight" response, it is clear there 

was an objection lodged to the question, and the magistrate asked appellant's counsel to 

rephrase the question. Appellant does not contest the ruling that Vetter was permitted to 
No. 18AP-793 11 

give a lay opinion, and Vetter eventually answered the same question more fully by 

explaining that some inmates are in jeopardy because they are an informant, some 

inmates do not care if other inmates know they are an informant, and some inmates do 

care if others know they are an informant. We can find no error in this case when Detective 

Vetter was eventually permitted to answer the question in full and provide her lay opinion 

on the issue. Therefore, we overrule appellant's second assignment of error. 

{¶ 22} Appellant argues in his third assignment of error the Court of Claims erred 

when it found there was insufficient evidence to establish prisoners at LCI were aware 

appellant was an informant. Appellant first contends there was sufficient evidence that LCI 

was aware he was cooperating with law enforcement, and we do not disagree. LCI helped 

arrange meetings between law enforcement and issued a separation order between 

appellant, Rosebrook, and Simons based upon his informing on them. However, that the 

inmates knew appellant was an informant is unsupported by any substantiated evidence. 

Although appellant points to the police report posted to the prison bulletin board, there is 

no evidence that any inmates, besides the inmate who allegedly informed appellant of the 

posting, saw the report. As the court found, there was no evidence about how long the 

posting was displayed, who displayed it, and who saw it. Notwithstanding, even if other 

inmates saw the posting or were otherwise aware he was an informant, there was still no 

evidence linking the attack to his informing activities, given the identity and motive of the 

attacker are unknown. For these reasons, we overrule appellant's third assignment of 

error. 

{¶ 23} Appellant argues in his fourth assignment of error the Court of Claims erred 

when it admitted exhibits 3 and 4 for limited purposes because the documents were 

properly authenticated and contained statements against interest. Exhibits 3 and 4 were 

letters sent from Simons to another inmate, Thomas Coldiron, from whom appellant 

obtained the letters. In them, Simons expressed his animosity toward appellant for 

informing against him and requested that an attachment be posted on the library bulletin 

board at the prison. At trial, appellant claimed the attachment that was referred to in 

exhibit 3 was the Urbana police report that was eventually posted on the bulletin board, 

but the attachment was missing from exhibit 3 at trial. ODRC objected to exhibits 3 and 4 

on the bases of hearsay and relevancy. ODRC contended that exhibit 3 could not be used to 
No. 18AP-793 12 

show the attachment was the police report that was later allegedly found on the prison 

bulletin board. Appellant's counsel countered that the exhibits were an exception to 

hearsay as statements against interest pursuant to Evid.R. 804(B)(3). 

{¶ 24} Evid.R. 801(C) defines hearsay as "a statement, other than one made by the 

declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of 

the matter asserted." Evid.R. 802 provides: 

Hearsay is not admissible except as otherwise provided by the 

Constitution of the United States, by the Constitution of the 

State of Ohio, by statute enacted by the General Assembly not 

in conflict with a rule of the Supreme Court of Ohio, by these 

rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court of 

Ohio. 

{¶ 25} Evid.R. 804(B) sets forth exceptions to the hearsay rule for statements 

made by declarants that are "unavailable." Pursuant to Evid.R. 804(B)(3), certain 

statements against interest made by an unavailable declarant are not excluded as hearsay. 

Evid.R. 804(B)(3) defines a statement against interest as: 

A statement that was at the time of its making so far contrary 

to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far 

tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or 

to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that 

a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have 

made the statement unless the declarant believed it to be true. 

{¶ 26} The rule further provides that "[a] statement tending to expose the 

declarant to criminal liability, whether offered to exculpate or inculpate the accused, is not 

admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the truthworthiness of the 

statement." Evid.R. 804(B)(3). 

{¶ 27} Whether to admit the hearsay statement of an unavailable declarant, 

pursuant to Evid.R. 804(B)(3), is within the discretion of a trial court. State v. Platt, 10th 

Dist. No. 03AP-1148, 2005-Ohio-705, ¶ 74, citing State v. Sumlin, 69 Ohio St.3d 105 

(1994), syllabus. An abuse of discretion implies the court's decision is unreasonable, 

arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). 

{¶ 28} In the present case, the magistrate ruled exhibits 3 and 4 could not be taken 

for the truth of any matters asserted in them but could have some relevance to actions and 
No. 18AP-793 13 

state of mind leading up to the attack. Appellant argues the letters contained threats and 

were admissible as statements against interest. Appellant contends the limited admission 

improperly excluded consideration of obvious threats that were contained in the 

documents and were notice to prisoners of appellant's actions as a snitch. 

{¶ 29} However, the hearsay exceptions in Evid.R. 804 apply only when the 

declarant is "unavailable." Evid.R. 804(A) defines the conditions under which a declarant 

is deemed to be unavailable. The burden of establishing unavailability rests on the party 

offering the evidence. See State v. Lincoln, 8th Dist. No. 58540 (May 16, 1991). Appellant 

failed to demonstrate Simons, the alleged author of exhibits 3 and 4, was unavailable as a 

witness. We also note that appellant did not present testimony from the purported 

recipient of the letters. Therefore, exhibits 3 and 4 were not admissible as statements 

against interest under Evid.R. 804(B)(3). We overrule appellant's fourth assignment of 

error. 

{¶ 30} Appellant argues in his fifth assignment of error the Court of Claims erred 

when it excluded the testimony of appellant's sister, Hauser, regarding whether she 

expressed concern to Detective Levan about appellant's safety at LCI. The trial court has 

broad discretion in the admission or exclusion of testimony. State v. Hill, 10th Dist. No. 

81AP-707 (Mar. 9, 1982). Thus, the standard under this claimed error is abuse of 

discretion. Id. 

{¶ 31} Here, ODRC objected to Hauser's testimony on this issue, arguing it was not 

relevant whether she expressed concern to Detective Levan about appellant's safety, 

because there was no evidence that Levan ever communicated any such concern to ODRC. 

Appellant's counsel countered that in a letter from Detective Levan, he referenced talking 

to "Matt," whom counsel said was an employee of LCI, and if they talked, Levan probably 

discussed Hauser's concerns about appellant's safety at LCI. The magistrate indicated he 

had already found the letters were hearsay, and the testimony appellant's counsel was 

attempting to elicit from Hauser would go to the same issue. Appellant's counsel then 

proffered Hauser's testimony that she expressed her concerns about appellant's safety to 

Detectives Levan and Vetter before the attack. 

{¶ 32} Appellant's only argument is that the excluded testimony was crucial to 

actual knowledge and the exclusion of vital relevant evidence is an abuse of discretion. We 
No. 18AP-793 14 

disagree. Appellant has failed to show how any communications between Hauser and 

Detective Levan were relevant. Detective Levan is not an employee of ODRC; thus, any 

communications from Hauser to Levan regarding appellant's safety cannot be imputed to 

ODRC. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Levan ever communicated any of 

Hauser's concerns to ODRC employees. Therefore, the magistrate did not abuse his 

discretion when he refused to permit Hauser to testify about any statements she made to 

Detective Levan regarding appellant's safety at LCI because they were not relevant. We 

overrule appellant's fifth assignment of error. 

{¶ 33} Appellant argues in his sixth assignment of error the Court of Claims erred 

when it excluded testimony regarding information appellant provided to Detective Vetter 

concerning a cellular phone possessed and used by inmate Rosebrook while in LCI. During 

Vetter's testimony, appellant's counsel questioned Vetter about Rosebrook's use of an 

illegal cellphone in 2007 and asked who told Vetter about the illegal cellphone. Counsel for 

ODRC objected on grounds of relevancy and that it exceeded the scope of crossexamination. The magistrate sustained the objection on the ground that it exceeded the 

scope of cross-examination. Appellant's counsel proffered Detective Vetter's testimony 

that she spoke with appellant about Rosebrook's illegal phone, she had discussed the 

phone with a prison administrator and an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper but not with 

anyone at LCI. Vetter stated appellant confirmed the existence of the phone, and 

authorities confiscated it. 

{¶ 34} Appellant argues the information provided by him regarding Rosebrook's 

illegal phone was passed onto LCI by Detective Vetter. Appellant claims this demonstrates 

the extent of his cooperation with law enforcement and that LCI was aware of his 

cooperation. Appellant also claims this shows the knowledge of the prison population of 

his action as an informant. 

{¶ 35} Initially, Detective Vetter's testimony in the proffer is not clear that she ever 

discussed appellant's cooperation with law enforcement regarding the illegal phone. Vetter 

did state she discussed the discovery of the illegal phone with LCI, but she did not say LCI 

was aware appellant provided the information. She also stated she discussed the phone 

with Paul Schumaker, whom she described as some sort of administrator within the prison 

system, and specifically stated she did not go to LCI with the information because she did 
No. 18AP-793 15 

not want it disclosed within LCI. She then again reiterated she did not believe she told LCI 

that appellant had helped them identify the existence of the phone. However, immediately 

after stating she did not tell LCI that appellant had helped her and she only dealt with 

Schumaker, she answered "yes" to whether Schumaker was an administrator at LCI. Our 

reading of the sum of the proffer suggests strongly that Schumaker was not an 

administrator at LCI, and Detective Vetter was confused about that question, given her 

prior description of Schumaker's job and her repeated statements she did not disclose to 

LCI that appellant had assisted her with the phone issue. Thus, Vetter's proffered 

testimony seems to have been that she never told anyone at LCI that appellant helped her 

identify the illegal phone. 

{¶ 36} Notwithstanding this ambiguity with Detective Vetter's proffered testimony, 

we can find no prejudicial error. It is undisputed appellant was an informant for Vetter 

and other law enforcement, and LCI was aware of it. Furthermore, appellant makes a giant 

leap of logic in arguing that because LCI was allegedly aware of appellant's assistance in 

confirming the existence of the illegal phone, the prison population was also aware he was 

an informant. In addition, appellant does not explain why his assistance in this matter in 

2007 was relevant to LCI's actual or constructive knowledge of the attack in 2011. For 

these reasons, we cannot find the court abused its discretion when it did not permit 

Detective Vetter to testify regarding information appellant provided to Vetter concerning 

Rosebrook's illegal cell phone at LCI. Therefore, we overrule appellant's sixth assignment 

of error. 

{¶ 37} Appellant argues in his seventh assignment of error that the Court of 

Claims' decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence and contrary to law. 

"Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential 

elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest 

weight of the evidence." C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978), 

syllabus. "In determining whether a civil judgment is against the manifest weight of the 

evidence, an appellate court is guided by the presumption that the findings of the trial 

court are correct." Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 18AP-720, 

2019-Ohio-2194, ¶ 17, citing Seasons Coal Co., Inc. v. Cleveland, 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80 

(1984). "The underlying rationale of giving deference to the findings of the trial court rests 
No. 18AP-793 16 

with the knowledge that the trial judge is best able to view the witnesses and observe their 

demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the 

credibility of the proffered testimony." Id. "Thus, the relative weight to be given witness 

testimony and the credibility to be afforded each of the witnesses is a question for the trier 

of fact." Id., citing Rahman v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 10th Dist. No. 05AP-439, 2006-

Ohio-3013, ¶ 36. 

{¶ 38} In the present case, appellant argues the facts established numerous listed 

conclusions. We have addressed many of these issues in discussing the prior assignments 

of error. Nevertheless, we agree that some of appellant's listed conclusions are supported 

by evidence, such as, Detective Vetter had contact with appellant during both 

imprisonment terms at LCI; Vetter arranged meetings at the prison; appellant informed 

for both Geauga and Logan counties; Rosebrook demonstrated he could arrange a murder 

while in prison; Detective Levan visited appellant at LCI; police visits to the prison were 

arranged with Crisler or his predecessor; appellant testified he told numerous people at 

LCI and the RIB that he was afraid; appellant testified he told the classification officer at 

the reception facility that he could not go to LCI and why; the classification officer gave 

him a separation order from Rosebrook and Simons; and LCI knew appellant was working 

with Detective Vetter. The problem is, and the real crux of the case is, although these 

conclusions may be true, they do not support a conclusion that ODRC had actual or 

constructive notice of an impending attack on appellant based on his informant actions. 

Furthermore, although appellant did testify he told LCI, the RIB, and the classification 

officer that he was afraid, we have already explained above there was no corroborating 

evidence presented to support such claims. 

{¶ 39} Some other conclusions appellant cites in his argument were not supported 

by the manifest weight of the evidence. As for his claim that the Urbana police narrative 

statement outlining appellant's action as an informant in the Rosebrook case was posted 

on the prison library bulletin board, there was no evidence or testimony, besides 

appellant's, that the report was posted on the bulletin board. This issue was not deeply 

probed or aggressively disputed but, regardless, the evidence and testimony at trial were 

certainly lacking regarding the alleged posting, such as who posted it and how long it was 
No. 18AP-793 17 

posted. The posting, in and of itself, was not particularly probative of ODRC's actual or 

constructive knowledge of an impending attack. 

{¶ 40} As for appellant's assertion that he was in two fights in LCI before the 

March 25, 2011 attack, with no plausible explanation other than appellant had informed 

on Rosebrook and Simons, there existed other possible reasons for the fights, such as, 

appellant's informing on other inmates regarding their use of alcohol and drugs, gang 

activity, and arguing over shower shoes. We find this argument without merit. 

{¶ 41} We also find there was insufficient evidence to support appellant's claim 

that he explained to the RIB the motive for the February 2011 fight was because he was an 

informant. There was no evidence in the RIB report or in the RIB's typed statement of 

appellant's alleged testimony that appellant believed the attack was related to Rosebrook,

and he told the RIB that Weber was mad because appellant refused to sell him his shower 

shoes. Appellant also testified at trial that he was jumped by Weber because Weber owed 

money to a gang, which he failed to connect to his informing activities. Thus, there was 

conflicting evidence on this issue, and the evidence does not support appellant's manifest 

weight of the evidence argument. 

{¶ 42} As for appellant's contention his sister testified that she warned LCI and 

ODRC's central office of her fears, her testimony was not certain. As discussed above, she 

testified she spoke to Detectives Vetter and Levan about appellant's safety, but there was 

no evidence that Vetter or Levan communicated such to anyone at ODRC. She also stated 

she wrote letters to several people about appellant's safety, but she did not know whether 

they were before or after the assault. As similarly noted by the Court of Claims, her 

testimony was vague regarding to whom she spoke and when. Therefore, this evidence 

does not support appellant's manifest weight argument. 

{¶ 43} As for appellant's assertion that Detective Vetter agreed a known informant 

is in danger in prison, we addressed this argument under appellant's second assignment of 

error, and found the court properly addressed Vetter's testimony on this line of 

questioning. Counsel for ODRC objected to the initial question asking Vetter whether a 

known informant is in danger in prison, and when Vetter was eventually permitted to 

answer the question in full as a lay opinion, Vetter stated she could not answer the 

question because some informants are in danger, some do not care if others know they are 
No. 18AP-793 18 

informants, and others do care if others know they are informants. Thus, Vetter's 

testimony does not support appellant's manifest weight of the evidence argument. 

{¶ 44} As for whether appellant told LCI his involvement as an informant was in 

two newspapers, the only evidence of such came from appellant's testimony. No other LCI 

employee testified that appellant informed him or her that two newspapers had indicated 

he was an informant, and no other evidence was presented to support this assertion. 

{¶ 45} For the foregoing reasons, we cannot find the court's determination was 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. The magistrate was in the best position to 

view appellant and the other witnesses and judge their credibility, and the magistrate 

chose to find much of appellant's testimony not credible. We will not disturb that 

credibility determination. Therefore, we overrule appellant's seventh assignment of error. 

{¶ 46} Accordingly, appellant's seven assignments of error are overruled, and the 

judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

BRUNNER and NELSON, JJ., concur. 

____________________