Smith v. Neff, 2024 Ohio 1881

Michael Smith was prosecuted for violating a protection order in Lakewood Municipal Court.
The protection order at issue was initially denied and sealed by the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court; those records were later temporarily unsealed and then resealed pending appeal.
Smith's criminal trial in Lakewood proceeded, with Judge Neff denying a motion to exclude any mention or evidence of the sealed common pleas court proceedings.
After the trial resulted in a hung jury, Smith sought a writ of prohibition to stop Judge Neff from permitting any discussion or use of the sealed records in the upcoming retrial.
The court sua sponte dismissed Smith’s second amended prohibition complaint, holding that Smith had an adequate remedy at law via direct appeal.
One judge dissented, arguing Smith stated a viable claim and the action should have proceeded to briefing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prohibition should issue to bar use/discussion of sealed records in criminal trial	Sealed records cannot be discussed or introduced by third parties; Judge is ignoring sealing order and stay	Judge has jurisdiction over the trial; sealing order does not bar independent evidence	Dismissed; prohibition unavailable as there’s adequate remedy at law
Whether Judge Neff lacks jurisdiction to allow such evidence	Judge Neff exceeds jurisdiction by not honoring seal order	Judge Neff’s court has jurisdiction over misdemeanor trial	No patent lack of jurisdiction; issue is evidentiary, not jurisdictional
Whether sealing of records prohibits all court discussion/use by any party	Sealing bars all use/discussion, not just by the clerk or public	Sealing restricts only public/clerk’s access; not independent evidence	Sealing does not bar all use/discussion if evidence is independently obtained
Whether prohibition is proper versus appeal	Prohibition is needed as appeal is inadequate for error	Appeal is adequate remedy for admissibility disputes	Appeal after trial is adequate legal remedy; prohibition not warranted

State ex rel. Burtzlaff v. Vickery, 121 Ohio St. 49 (standard for writ of prohibition)
State v. Aguirre, 144 Ohio St.3d 179 (effect of sealing records is to shield from public, not bar all use)
Defiance v. Kretz, 60 Ohio St.3d 1 (motion in limine rulings are tentative and reviewed on direct appeal)
Badger v. Flanagan, 100 Ohio App.3d 173 (prohibition not available to challenge evidentiary rulings with adequate alternative remedies)