State Ex Rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga County Jury Commissioner

Ohio Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga County Jury Commissioner

2010 Ohio 120, 921 N.E.2d 236, 124 Ohio St. 3d 238

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 21, 2010

Docket2009-1442

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 2010 Ohio 120 (State Ex Rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga County Jury Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Barb v. Cuyahoga County Jury Commissioner, 2010 Ohio 120, 921 N.E.2d 236, 124 Ohio St. 3d 238 (Ohio 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

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. State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 16. 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 State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 427, 639 N.E.2d 83, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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. State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-Ohio-5858, 856 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 16. 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 State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 427, 639 N.E.2d 83, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2010 Ohio 120, 921 N.E.2d 236, 124 Ohio St. 3d 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-barb-v-cuyahoga-county-jury-commissioner-ohio-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack