Opinion
No. 91-1976
Submitted July 8, 1992 —
Decided September 2, 1992.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Miami County, No. 91 CA 36.
In March 1990, a grand jury indicted John W. Hurt, Jr., relator-appellant, for aggravated murder with a death penalty specification; however, trial of that case was delayed. See State ex rel. Hurt v. Kistler (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 307, 587 N.E.2d 298. On May 28, 1991, relator requested a wide array of law enforcement records from Miami County Sheriff Charles A. Cox, respondent-appellee.
While relator's request was being reviewed, Hurt filed for mandamus relief on June 24, 1991, in the Court of Appeals for Miami County to compel disclosure of public records under R.C. 149.43. The court of appeals dismissed relator's mandamus complaint on the ground that relator had an adequate remedy at law because he could litigate his right to secure these records in his ongoing criminal case. Relator now appeals that dismissal to this court.
Randall M. Dana, Ohio Public Defender, Randall L. Porter and Dale A. Baich; Steven R. Layman, Assistant County Public Defender, for appellant.
Jeffrey M. Welbaum, Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas G. Petkewitz, for appellee.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. See State ex rel. Shane v. New Philadelphia Police Dept. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 36, 564 N.E.2d 89; State ex rel. Scanlon v. Deters (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376, 544 N.E.2d 680.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., HOLMES, WRIGHT and H. BROWN, JJ., concur.
SWEENEY, DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., concur separately.
I concur with the judgment of the majority but for reasons other than those expressed by the majority. Having an allegedly "adequate remedy at law" is not a defense to a mandamus action filed pursuant to R.C. 149.43.
SWEENEY and RESNICK, JJ., concur in the foregoing concurring opinion.