State ex rel. Reynolds v. Kirby, 2023 Ohio 782

Relator Jessica R. Reynolds was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence and child endangering; a county (municipal-like) court convicted her but the Twelfth District vacated the convictions.
Prosecutor sought witness-immunity under R.C. 2945.44 for the juvenile victim (L.C.); the county court denied for lack of jurisdiction and advised filing in the court of common pleas.
The prosecutor filed an R.C. 2945.44 application in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas, Probate–Juvenile Division; Judge Joseph W. Kirby granted immunity to L.C. and a stepbrother, M.R.
Reynolds appealed; the appellate court dismissed for lack of a final order, and Reynolds filed this original action seeking mandamus and prohibition to vacate the immunity order and to compel the prosecutor to refile in the general division.
The Supreme Court examined whether the probate‑juvenile division (as a division of the common pleas court or as a probate court) had jurisdiction under R.C. 2945.44, and whether the prosecutor had a clear legal duty to file an immunity application in the general division.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the probate‑juvenile division of the court of common pleas has authority under R.C. 2945.44 to grant witness immunity in a criminal proceeding	Reynolds: R.C. 2945.44 authorizes the court of common pleas, but does not authorize the juvenile/probate division to grant immunity	Judges Kirby/Loxley: The probate‑juvenile division is a division of the common pleas court, so it may exercise the power conferred on the court of common pleas	Held: Probate‑juvenile court patently and unambiguously lacked jurisdiction; writ of prohibition granted to vacate immunity order
Whether the prosecutor had a clear, mandatory duty to file an R.C. 2945.44 application in the general (common pleas) division	Reynolds: Prosecutor should have filed the application in the general division; relator seeks mandamus to compel filing there	Prosecutor Fornshell: Filing under R.C. 2945.44 is discretionary; no obligatory duty to pursue immunity in a particular division	Held: No clear legal duty; mandamus denied and prosecutor's motion to dismiss granted

State ex rel. Love v. O'Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 378 (standard for mandamus)
State ex rel. Elder v. Camplese, 144 Ohio St.3d 89 (standard for prohibition)
State ex rel. Ford v. Ruehlman, 149 Ohio St.3d 34 (lack of adequate remedy where jurisdiction is patent)
State ex rel. Smith v. Frost, 74 Ohio St.3d 107 (prohibition to correct prior acts taken without jurisdiction)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (scope of common pleas' general jurisdiction)
In re Gibson, 61 Ohio St.3d 168 (juvenile court jurisdiction is statutory)
Pula v. Pula-Branch, 129 Ohio St.3d 196 (statutory conferment can expand a division's powers)
Hughes v. Calabrese, 95 Ohio St.3d 334 (prohibition proper where an inferior court patently lacks jurisdiction)
State ex rel. Xenia v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 160 Ohio St.3d 495 (a writ cannot compel performance of a permissive act)
State ex rel. Hodges v. Taft, 64 Ohio St.3d 1 (same)