State v. Balraj, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2000)
This text of State v. Balraj, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2000) (State v. Balraj, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2000)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
On September 13, 1983, the relator was found guilty, by a jury, of the offenses of the aggravated murder of Joseph M. Saunders (R.C.
Pursuant to R.C.
In State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch (1984),
In addition, R.C.
A public officer or person responsible for public records is not required to permit a person who is incarcerated pursuant to a criminal conviction or a juvenile adjudication to inspect or to obtain a copy of any public record concerning a criminal investigation or prosecution or concerning what would be a criminal investigation or prosecution if the subject of the investigation were an adult, unless the request to inspect or to obtain a copy of the record is for the purpose of acquiring information that is subject to release as a public record under this section and the judge who imposed the sentence or made the adjudication with respect to the person, or the judge's successor in office, finds that the information sought in the public record is necessary to support what appears to be a justifiable claim of the person.
Herein, the relator has failed to demonstrate that he has attempted to comply with the mandatory requirements of R.C.
Finally, the Supreme Court of Ohio, in State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994),
Except as required by Crim.R. 16, information assembled by law enforcement officials in connection with a probable or pending criminal proceeding is, by the work product exception found in R.C.
149.43 (A)(2)(c), excepted from required release as said information is compiled in anticipation of litigation. * * * Id., paragraph five of the syllabus.
The Supreme Court of Ohio also held in Steckman that information not subject to discovery pursuant to Crim.R. 16 is not subject to release as a public record pursuant to R.C.
It must be noted that although two respondents were named within the relator's complaint for a writ of mandamus, only respondent-Balraj has filed a dispositive motion. Respondent-Campbell has not filed a dispositive motion. The granting of respondent-Balraj's motion to dismiss, however, renders any claim pending against respondent-Campbell moot, which in turn renders the judgment of this court final and appealable. General Acc. Ins. Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1989),
Accordingly, we grant respondent-Balraj's motion to dismiss. Costs to relator.
DIANE KARPINSKI, P.J. MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR.
___________________________ JOHN T. PATTON, JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Balraj, Unpublished Decision (8-2-2000), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-balraj-unpublished-decision-8-2-2000-ohioctapp-2000.