State Ex Rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga County Jury Commissioner
921 N.E.2d 236
Ohio
2010
Check Treatment

THE STATE EX REL. BARB, APPELLANT, v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY JURY COMMISSIONER, APPELLEE.

No. 2009-1442

Supreme Court of Ohio

January 21, 2010

124 Ohio St.3d 238, 2010-Ohio-120

Submitted January 13, 2010

Per Curiam.

{1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of mandamus sought by appellant, inmate Danny Barb, to compel appellee, the Cuyahoga County Jury Commissioner, to provide lists of prospective jurors and jurors who served in three criminal cases in which Barb was the defendant. Barb is not entitled to the requested records because he did not comply with R.C. 149.43(B)(8), which requires a finding by Barb‘s sentencing judge or the judge‘s successor that the requested information is necessary to support what appears to be a justiciable claim.

. Although we acknowledge that a person‘s status as a designee and the person‘s purpose in obtaining records are not normally issues in public-records cases, see
, R.C. 149.43(B)(8) provides an exception in which incarcerated persons and the purpose for which they seek records relating to a criminal investigation or prosecution are dispositive. Steckman is further inapposite here because Barb‘s purported designee did not institute the mandamus action.

Judgment affirmed.

MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O‘CONNOR, O‘DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur.

Danny Barb, pro se.

William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles E. Hannan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.