Ohio Supreme Court, 1997

State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided July 23, 1997 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

79 Ohio St. 3d 272; 680 N.E.2d 1238

Cases that cite this one

28 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

State v. Burns (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Maldonado (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
State ex rel. Whittaker v. Lucas Cty. Prosecutor's Office (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2021)
State ex rel. Peoples v. O'Shaughnessy (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2021)
State ex rel. Capron v. Dattilio (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
Mehno v. Dattilio (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
State ex rel. Dominguez v. State (Ohio 2011)
State v. Boylen, Unpublished Decision (4-17-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. Boylen v. Harmon (Ohio 2006)
State Ex Rel Budreaux v. Gaul, Unpublished Decision (3-28-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Department of Law (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept. of Law (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee (Ohio 1998)
State ex rel. Woznak v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor's Office (Ohio Ct. App. 2026)
State ex rel. Jones v. Adult Parole Auth. (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
State ex rel. Blachere v. Tyack (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)
Dixon v. Hunt (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2020)
Jones v. Thomas (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)
State v. Roby (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State Ex Rel. Byrd v. Ross, Unpublished Decision (5-25-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State Ex Rel. Stoops Freightliner v. Roop, Unpublished Decision (10-26-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
State Ex Rel. Freightliner v. Roop, Unpublished Decision (10-19-2004) (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

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.

Strothers asserts that he is entitled to the requested writ of mandamus pursuant to R.C. 2935.09. For the reasons that follow, we find this assertion to be meritless and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

While R.C. 2935.09 provides that a “private citizen having knowledge of the facts” shall file with a judge, clerk of court, or magistrate an affidavit charging an offense committed in order to cause the arrest or prosecution of the person charged, it must be read in pari materia with R.C. 2935.10, which prescribes the subsequent procedure to be followed. State v. Holbert (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 113, 117, 67 O.O.2d 111, 113, 311 N.E.2d 22, 25.

R.C. 2935.10(A) provides after the filing of an R.C. 2935.09 affidavit with a judge, clerk, or magistrate charging a felony offense, “such judge, clerk, or magistrate, unless he has reason to believe that it was not filed in good faith, or the claim is not meritorious, shall forthwith issue a warrant for the arrest of the person charged in the affidavit, and directed to a peace officer; otherwise he shall forthwith refer the matter to the prosecuting attorney or other attorney charged by law with prosecution for investigation prior to the issuance of warrant.”

Under R.C. 2935.10(A), a clerk with whom an R.C. 2935.09 affidavit charging a felony offense is filed has no duty to issue an arrest warrant if the clerk *274determines that the affidavit is either not filed in good faith or is not meritorious. State ex rel. Jackson v. Clerk of Courts, Columbiana Cty. (June 8, 1995), Columbiana App. No. 94-C-75, unreported, 1995 WL 358705. Instead, under the foregoing circumstances, the clerk need only refer the matter to the prosecuting attorney. Id.; R.C. 2935.10(A).

As the court of appeals determined, mandamus will not issue to compel a vain act. State ex rel. Leach v. Schotten (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 538, 540, 653 N.E.2d 356, 358. A writ of mandamus to compel Turner to file the affidavit would constitute a vain act because the summary judgment evidence established that Turner had reason to believe that Strothers’s affidavit lacked merit and that the prosecuting attorney had already determined that there existed no probable cause to believe that Carter had committed the offenses charged by Strothers. As the court of appeals noted, “the authorities responsible for prosecuting Carmela Carter for any criminal violation have determined that no probable cause exists for the filing of criminal charges.” Therefore, since the filing of Strothers’s affidavit would lead to neither Carter’s arrest nor prosecution, the court of appeals properly concluded that Strothers is not entitled to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

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