COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 66377 : ORIGINAL ACTION STATE OF OHIO, EX REL., : DENNIS CALO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Relator : : and -vs- : : OPINION CITY OF CLEVELAND, CUSTODIAN OF : RECORDS : : Respondent : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT JULY 19, 1995 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: WRIT OF MANDAMUS JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Relator: For Respondent: Dennis Calo, Pro Se #179-579 Sharon Sobol Jordan, Lorain Correctional Institute Director of Law 2075 South Avon Belden Road By: Joseph J. Jerse Grafton, Ohio 44044 Assistant Director of Law Room 106 - City Hall 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - HARPER, P.J.: Relator, Dennis Calo, commenced this public records mandamus action pursuant to R.C. 149.43 against the respondent, the City of Cleveland, to obtain access to and copies of the following records: (1) all records relating to the investigation and trials regarding the double homicide of Thomas Kowal and Kim Shusta in 1978; (2) voter registration cards of the grand jury foremen for the January 1976 through December 1991 terms; (3) inventory sheets pertaining to the Kowal and Shusta case; (4) chain of custody documents for the transfer of evidence between the Strongsville and Cleveland Police Departments; and (5) pages of testimony presented to the grand jury in Case Nos. Cr. 186387 and Cr. 38252. Mr. Calo, imprisoned in the Grafton Correctional Institute, asserted a designee would pay for and pick up the copies of the records. Cleveland moved for summary judgment on the grounds of res judicata and the designee issue pursuant to State ex rel. Larkins v. Kovacic (May 5, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 64780, unreported. Cleveland also submitted that the double homicide occurred in Strongsville, and thus, it has no records relating to the matter. This court, following State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83, denied Cleveland's motion for summary judgment to the extent that it relied on the designee issue. This court reserved ruling on the res judicata issue and ordered Mr. Calo to show that Cleveland had some of the - 3 - requested records and to address the res judicata issue. Also because most, if not all, of the requested records were police investigatory records, which Steckman ruled were exempt from disclosure under R.C. 149.43, this court ordered Mr. Calo to show cause why Steckman should not apply. He never filed a response. For the following reasons, this court grants Cleveland's motion for summary judgment. Res judicata prevents relitigation not only of what was determined but also every question which might properly have been litigated in a prior case. Rogers v. Whitehall (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 67, 494 N.E.2d 1387 and Johnson's Island, Inc. v. Board of Township Trustees of Danbury Township (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 241, 431 N.E.2d 672. Mr. Calo previously filed State ex rel. Calo v. Cleveland Police Department, Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals Case No. 63811, in which he comprehensively sought records relating to the double homicide. Cleveland established then that it did not possess such records, and Mr. Calo has tendered nothing which would indicate otherwise. In the prior case Mr. Calo litigated or could have litigated the public records issues he presents in the case sub judice. All the records he now seeks existed at the time he brought his prior action; thus, nothing prevented him from seeking those records at that time. Accordingly, because there is no genuine issue of fact that Cleveland does not possess the requested records and because res judicata properly applies to this matter, the respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted. - 4 - Moreover, because Mr. Calo has made no showing why Steckman should not apply in this case, this court dismisses this action in light of Steckman. Most, if not all, of the records requested are police investigatory records sought by a convicted felon to support a post-conviction petition. Thus, the records are not subject to disclosure pursuant to Ohio's Public Records Act. See, also, State ex rel. Slagle v. Oliver (Oct. 6, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 67692, unreported; State ex rel. Kerr v. Cleveland Police Dept. (Nov. 16, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 67862, unreported; State ex rel. Carpenter v. Jones (Dec. 6, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 67365, unreported. Additionally, the records of the grand jury proceedings are exempt from disclosure. In State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Company v. Waters (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 321, 617 N.E.2d 1110, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that pursuant to the incorporation clause of R.C. 149.43(A)(1), Criminal Rule 6(E), which provides that grand jury proceedings may be disclosed only when so directed by the court, is another state law which prohibits the release of such records. See, also, the concurring opinion of Justice Resnick which recognized that the traditional, inherent, and necessary secrecy of the grand jury must be preserved over the interests of the public records law. Furthermore, in Waters the supreme court reaffirmed the principle that grand jury proceedings may be disclosed only when the ends of justice require it and only upon a showing of particularized need. State v. Grewell (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 4, 543 N.E.2d 93. - 5 - Mr. Calo has not shown such a need. Thus, his requests for grand jury records also fails for these reasons. The request for voter registration cards of grand jury foremen is misdirected. Such records are under the jurisdiction of the county board of elections, not the City of Cleveland. Moreover, R.C. 3503.13(B) regulates the inspection of such records and requires the presence of an employee of the board of elections. Finally, this court dismisses Mr. Calo's public records mandamus action for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, the respondent's motion for summary judgment is granted, and the case is dismissed. Relator to pay costs. LEO M. SPELLACY, J., AND JAMES M. PORTER, J., CONCUR. .