Thе State ex rel. Martin, Appellant, v. City of Cleveland et al., Appellees.
No. 92-475
Supreme Court of Ohio
August 18, 1993
[Cite as State ex rel. Martin v. Cleveland (1993), Ohio St.3d .]
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter‘s Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reportеr, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcomе.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been relеased electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will alsо contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.
Mandamus to compel access to public records relating to relator‘s arrest and investigatiоn for aggravated murder -- Writ denied when documents are exempt from public release based upon prоmises of confidentiality or threats to the physical safety of witnesses --
(No. 92-475 -- Submitted May 18, 1993 -- Decided August 18, 1993.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 60977.
Relator-appellant, Ernest Martin, was convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated murder and sentenced to death, and we affirmed his convictions and death sentence. State v. Martin (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 122, 19 OBR 330, 483 N.E.2d 1157, certiorari denied, Martin v. Ohio (1986), 474 U.S. 1073, 106 S. Ct. 837, 88 L.Ed.2d 808.
In August 1990, Martin‘s counsel requested that Cleveland officials provide him access to рublic records relating to his arrest and investigation of the crimes with which he was charged. Following the city‘s allegеd inaction, Martin instituted a complaint for mandamus under
The cause is now before us upon an appeal as of right.
James Kura, Ohio Public Defender, Richard J. Vickers and Dale A. Baich, Assistаnt Public Defenders, for appellant.
Danny R. Williams, Director of Law, and Joseph J. Jerse, Assistant Director of Law, for appellees.
At the outset, we reject Martin‘s effort to require that a public document, within its four corners, specify the promise of confidentiality to witnesses or the threat to their physical safеty in order to be exempt from release under
Hеre, the court of appeals acted upon adequate evidence to exempt these documents from public release. Moreover, “reversal of the factual determinations of the appellate court relative to disclosure made during its in camera review would be inappropriate absent an abuse of discretion.” State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Watkins (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 129, 136-137, 609 N.E.2d 551, 558.
Despite Martin‘s claims to the contrary, witnеss statements can be exempt trial preparation records. State ex rel. Hamblin v. Brooklyn (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d , N.E.2d ; State ex rel. Johnson v. Cleveland (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 331, 332, 603 N.E.2d 1011, 1012.
Here, the court of appeals properly found certain witness statements to be exempt “trial preparation” records. Other facts confirm a homicide detective‘s assertion that these statements were “prepared for no other reason than for the use of the prosеcutor.” In form, these statements were verbatim, first person, typewritten narratives which were reviewed, sworn to and signed by the witnesses. That form, useful both to refresh recollection or impeach a witness, was similar to what lawyеrs use to “lock in” a witness for trial. Moreover, detectives mostly took the statements after the investigation had focused on Martin and he had been arrested.
Finally, we reject Martin‘s claim that the city may have waived its exemption to public release. We need not consider a claim never raised before the trial сourt. State v. Williams (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 112, 5 O.O.3d 98, 364 N.E.2d 1364. Also, the passage of time does not alter the exempt status of documents. State ex rel. Polovischak v. Mayfield (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 51, 552 N.E.2d 635; State ex rel. Thompson Newspapers, Inc. v. Martin (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 28, 546 N.E.2d 939.
Thus, “the court of apрeals’ decision was reasoned, logical, and based on precedent. Its decision followed and applied our previous decisions * * *.” State ex rel. Zuern v. Leis (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 20, 22, 564 N.E.2d 81, 83. Accordingly, we affirm its judgment.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney and Resnick, JJ., concur.
Douglas and Wright, JJ., concur in judgment only.
Pfeifer, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissent in State ex rel. Hamblin v. Brooklyn (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d , N.E.2d , decided this date.
F.E. Sweeney, J., not participating.