State ex rel. Capron v. Dattilio (Slip Opinion)
146 Ohio St. 3d 7
Ohio2016Background
- Relator John F. Capron III filed a mandamus complaint asking the clerk of courts (Dattilio) to accept an affidavit alleging perjury and asking the prosecutor (Herron) to prosecute the named individual.
- R.C. 2935.09(D) permits a private citizen to file an affidavit alleging a crime; R.C. 2935.10(A) directs the clerk to either issue a warrant or refer to the prosecutor.
- The clerk declined to accept the affidavit for filing, and the prosecutor declined to file criminal charges, concluding the evidence was insufficient.
- Capron sought a writ of mandamus in the court of appeals to compel filing and prosecution; the Seventh District dismissed his complaint.
- The Ohio Supreme Court considered whether Capron had a clear legal right to compel the clerk to file the affidavit and the prosecutor to prosecute.
- The Court affirmed the dismissal, finding no clear duty on the clerk or prosecutor and no abuse of prosecutorial discretion shown by Capron.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the clerk had a duty to accept Capron's affidavit for filing | Capron argued the clerk must accept the affidavit under R.C. 2935.09(D) | Respondents argued the statute does not mandate acceptance and must be read with R.C. 2935.10(A) | Clerk had no clear duty to accept the affidavit |
| Whether the prosecutor had a duty to prosecute the alleged perjury | Capron argued he had a right to compel prosecution based on his affidavit | Prosecutor argued charging decisions are discretionary and he reasonably declined to prosecute for insufficient evidence | Prosecutor had no clear duty to prosecute; decision was within discretion |
| Whether failure to prosecute constituted an abuse of discretion | Capron claimed the refusal to prosecute was an abuse warranting mandamus | Respondents contended no abuse; prosecutor reasonably exercised discretion | No abuse of discretion shown; mandamus not warranted |
| Whether mandamus was available as an adequate remedy | Capron asserted mandamus was appropriate to obtain enforcement | Respondents maintained Capron lacked a clear legal right and other remedies exist | Capron failed to prove the elements for mandamus by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55, 960 N.E.2d 452 (2012) (mandamus standard and burden of proof)
- State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner, 79 Ohio St.3d 272 (1997) (interaction of R.C. 2935.09 and 2935.10)
- State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept. of Law, 83 Ohio St.3d 174 (1998) (no clear duty to prosecute)
- State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland, 75 Ohio St.3d 23 (1996) (prosecutorial charging discretion not generally reviewable)
- Brown v. Best Prods., Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 32 (1985) (criminal charging decisions vested in the state)
- State ex rel. Murr v. Meyer, 34 Ohio St.3d 46 (1987) (mandamus to compel prosecution only when failure is abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Squire v. Taft, 69 Ohio St.3d 365 (1994) (same)