Lead Opinion
Wе hold that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in finding particular witness statements to be exempt triаl preparation materials under R.C. 149.43(A)(4) or in finding certain forensic documents to be exempt investigatory work product, R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c).
Here, the court of appeals performed the mandated individualized scrutiny of the records. See State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland (1988),
Admittedly, “[w]e have recognized, on numerous occasions, the limited availability of the trial preparation exception.” State ex rel. Williams v. Cleveland, supra,
The court of appeals exercised its discretion properly here in finding that these witness statements qualified as trial preparation recоrds. That court found that those statements “transcend the mere chronicling of fact” and “are the exact words of a possible trial witness, signed by the witness and taken to furnish the prosecutor with the requisite direct testimony.” Further, their form ensured authenticity, and the statements could be used to impeach the witness or to refresh recollection. Uncontradicted evidence existed that these statements “were specifically prepared * * * for the sole purpose of providing the prosecutor with the information necessary to present the case to the grand jury and to a jury at the criminal trial.”
Finally, the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in finding that scientific and forensic tests and submissions for such tests qualifiеd as exempt work product under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c). See State ex rel. Williams v. Cleveland, supra,
In sum, Hamblin has not demonstrated that the court of appeals abused its discretion in finding, after an in camera inspection, that certain documents were exempt from release. That “reasoned, logical conclusion need not be disturbed on appeal.” State ex rel. Johnson v. Cleveland, supra, at 332-333,
Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. David Hamblin fatally wounded Lillian Merrick on Oсtober 13, 1983. By June 15, 1988, he had been tried and convicted of the crime and had had his appeal as of right before this сourt. We upheld the conviction and death sentence, and later in 1988 the United States Supreme Court denied Hamblin’s petition for a writ of certiorari.
Pursuant to R.C. 2953.21(A), any person convicted of a criminal offense who claims that there was such a denial or infringement of his rights as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio or United States Constitutions may file an action with the sentencing court stating the grounds for relief and asking the court to vacate or set asidе the judgment or sentence. In conjunction with such an action, defendants routinely seek to review the prosecutor’s file regarding their case.
It is apparent that litigating the denial of a public records request for the prosecutor’s entire file has now become an effective strategy to delay the imposition of the death penalty in Ohio. This case is a classic example.
It has been over four years since David Hamblin’s counsel made their public records request to the city of Brooklyn. For four years the state of Ohio has fed,
The perpetrators of death рenalty crimes exact a huge toll on our society. First, there is the loss of the life of the- innocent victim and the сoncomitant emotional and psychological cost to the victim’s family, friends, and community. Then, there are the more measurable costs of confinement and legal costs for the defendant’s seemingly endless appеals. A further hidden cost is the death penalty defendant’s drain on the resources of our public defenders, resourсes which could be better put to use for the defense of indigent defendants at the trial level. Finally, there is a cоst to the philosophical validity of the death penalty statute, which is hopelessly undermined when appeаls and the habeas corpus process routinely cover the span of two decades.
Our courts must do what is within thеir power to control those costs. The best way to do that is to open the prosecutor’s entire file at the conclusion of a death penalty defendant’s statutory appeals process.
Also, for post-сonviction relief to be meaningful, a defendant needs access to the file that is the one most likely to contain information regarding questionable prosecution tactics. If the prosecutor’s file contains information that indicates the defendant’s death sentence was somehow wrongfully obtained, then clearly the defendant and the trial court should be provided that information for the post-conviction relief hearing.
In this case, the prosecutor should have opened his entire file immediately upon the defendant’s request. Since the prosecutor did not, the trial court should have ordered him to do so. I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion.