Ohio Supreme Court, 1998

State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Department of Law

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided September 23, 1998 · Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney

83 Ohio St. 3d 174; 699 N.E.2d 60

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

State ex rel. Brown v. Nusbaum (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State ex rel. Whittaker v. Lucas Cty. Prosecutor's Office (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2021)
State ex rel. Whittaker v. Lucas Cty. Prosecutor's Office (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
State ex rel. Capron v. Dattilio (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer (Slip Opinion) (Ohio 2016)
In re Charging Affidavit of Demis (Ohio Ct. App. 2013)
State v. West, 05 Je 57 (9-24-2007) (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)
State v. Boylen, Unpublished Decision (4-17-2006) (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
State ex rel. Boylen v. Harmon (Ohio 2006)
Metzenbaum v. Vitantonio, Unpublished Decision (2-7-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
State ex rel. Portage Lakes Education Ass'n v. State Employment Relations Board (Ohio 2002)
State ex rel. Lee v. Montgomery (Ohio 2000)
State v. L.F. (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)
Dixon v. Hunt (District Court, S.D. Ohio 2020)
State v. Roby (Ohio Ct. App. 2017)
State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
Evans v. Evans, Unpublished Decision (11-13-2003) (Ohio Ct. App. 2003)
State ex rel. Portage Lakes Edn. Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (Ohio 2002)
State ex rel. Lee v. Montgomery (Ohio 2000)
State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept. of Law (Ohio 1998)

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.

Evans 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 contention to be meritless and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

First, as the court of appeals correctly held, R.C. 2935.09 does not mandate prosecution of all offenses charged by affidavit. Although 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 a person charged, it must be read in pari materia with R.C. 2935.10, which prescribes the subsequent procedure to be followed. State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 272, 273, 680 N.E.2d 1238, 1239. R.C. 2935.10 does not place any duty upon city prosecutors to prosecute misdemeanors charged by affidavit filed under R.C. 2935.09.

In addition, a prosecuting attorney will not be compelled to prosecute except when the failure to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion. State ex rel. Master v. Cleveland (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 23, 27, 661 N.E.2d 180, 184. Evans did not allege sufficient facts in his complaint evidencing that the city prosecutor abused her discretion by determining that the charges lacked probable cause. See State ex rel. Murr v. Meyer (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 46, 47, 516 N.E.2d 234, 235, affirming the dismissal of a similar mandamus claim.

Based on the foregoing, 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.