Ohio Supreme Court, 1994

State ex rel. Hill v. Niehaus

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided March 23, 1994 · Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright

68 Ohio St. 3d 507; 628 N.E.2d 1376

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

State Ex Rel. Amon v. Bernard (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
State v. Hill (Ohio 1996)
Leon v. Cuyahoga County Ct. of Common Pleas, 92826 (3-27-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
Jackson v. Franklin Cty. Ct. of Com. Pleas, Unpublished Decision (4-6-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Hunter v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas (Ohio 2000)
State v. Taylor (Ohio 1997)
State v. Taylor (Ohio 1997)
State v. Hill (Ohio 1996)
State ex rel. Hester v. Crush (Ohio 1996)
State ex rel. Hester v. Crush (Ohio 1996)
State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri (Ohio 1994)
State ex rel. Hill v. Niehaus (Ohio 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The court of appeals did not err in dismissing Hill’s mandamus and prohibition complaint. The trial court has authority to resolve disputes and correct factual errors in a trial record, including disputes over when a verdict form was filed or the effect of a document’s being filed late. See State v. Schiebel (1990), 55 Ohio St.3d 71, 81, 564 N.E.2d 54, 66; Reichert v. Ingersoll (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 220, 222, 18 OBR 281, 283, 480 N.E.2d 802, 805. App.R. 9(E) specifically provides:

“(E) Correction or Modification of the Record.

“ * * * If anything material * * * is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the trial court, *509either before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, * * * may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected[.]” (Emphasis added.)

Additionally, Hill can secure neither mandamus nor prohibition because he already has an adequate legal remedy to raise those issues in his pending capital case. See R.C. 2731.05; State v. Martin (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 122, 132, 19 OBR 330, 338-339, 483 N.E.2d 1157, 1166; State v. D’Ambrosio (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 199, 616 N.E.2d 909, 920-921.

We have also stressed the parties’ responsibility to correct trial records through App.R. 9(C) and 9(E). See State v. Tyler (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 24, 41, 553 N.E.2d 576, 596; State v. Brewer (1990), 48 Ohio St.3d 50, 60, 549 N.E.2d 491, 501-502. As do all counsel, counsel representing criminal defendants have an obligation not to file separate and multiplicitous lawsuits when issues can be addressed in pending litigation. See Civ.R. 11; DR 7-102(A)(1) and (2); Disciplinary Counsel v. Leyshon (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 202, 625 N.E.2d 602; Disciplinary Counsel v. Cox (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 124, 568 N.E.2d 1219; Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Russell (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 211, 556 N.E.2d 499.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.