State ex rel. A.N. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor's Office (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 2071

In 2019 A.N. (then 25) filed two charging affidavits in Cuyahoga C.P. Ct. under R.C. 2935.09(D): one alleging his father assaulted him with a hockey stick in 2001 (felonious assault/domestic violence) and another alleging his mother committed felony child endangering from 1997–2010.
The common pleas court referred the affidavits to the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office under R.C. 2935.10(A).
The prosecutor declined to pursue charges and the trial court entered journal entries refusing to issue arrest warrants; A.N. appealed but the appeals were dismissed.
A.N. then sought writs of mandamus in the court of appeals to compel the county prosecutor and the City of North Olmsted to prosecute; the prosecutor moved for summary judgment and the city moved to dismiss.
The court of appeals granted summary judgment for the prosecutor and dismissed the claim against the city; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, finding no abuse of prosecutorial discretion and no clear duty on the city to act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecutor must prosecute offenses alleged in charging affidavits	A.N.: charging affidavits create a legal duty to prosecute; mandamus should compel prosecution	Prosecutor: no clear duty to prosecute; decision is discretionary and only reviewable for abuse of discretion	Prosecutor has no general duty to prosecute; mandamus unavailable absent abuse of discretion; no abuse found
Whether statute of limitations barred prosecution of the 2001 assault	A.N.: limitations tolled while a minor; prosecution still possible	Prosecutor: limitations likely applicable and/or evidence insufficient	Court did not decide limitations issue but held prosecutorial discretion to decline prosecution proper given evidentiary insufficiency
Whether City of North Olmsted had a duty to prosecute after referral to county prosecutor	A.N.: city prosecutor was informed and should have acted	City: city referred matter to county and had no additional duty; county was investigating	City had no clear legal duty to pursue prosecution already referred to county; dismissal proper
Whether courts should independently find probable cause and order prosecution	A.N.: appellate court should have made independent probable-cause finding and compelled prosecution	Respondents: courts’ role is limited; only remedy is mandamus for abuse of discretion	Courts will not independently prosecute; absent abuse of discretion, they will not compel prosecution

State ex rel. Capron v. Dattilio, 146 Ohio St.3d 7 (prosecutor has no general duty to prosecute; mandamus only when failure to prosecute is an abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland, 75 Ohio St.3d 23 (abuse of discretion means unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable decision)
State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 147 Ohio St.3d 462 (elements required to obtain writ of mandamus)
State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384 (standard of review for summary judgment in mandamus actions)
State ex rel. McKinney v. Schmenk, 152 Ohio St.3d 70 (standard for dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) in mandamus context)
State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum, 152 Ohio St.3d 284 (prosecutor’s decision not to pursue charges is generally not a final, appealable order)