COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68867 STATE OF OHIO EX REL. : ULYSSES DODSON : : RELATOR : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, : OPINION PROSECUTOR : : MOTION NO. 63075 RESPONDENT : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JUNE 12, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: MANDAMUS JUDGMENT: DISMISSED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Relator: Ulysses Dodson, pro se No. 243-230 P.O. Box 1812 Marion, OH 43301 For Respondent: Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Esq. Cuyahoga County Prosecutor John W. Monroe, Esq. Assistant County Prosecutor Justice Center - 8th Floor 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, OH 44113 -2- DAVID T. MATIA, P.J.: Relator, Ulysses Dodson, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in order to compel the respondent, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the Prosecuting Attorney for Cuyahoga County, to produce transcripts of the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury proceedings which resulted in the relator's indictment in the following criminal cases: 1) CR-181233 - receiving stolen property and possessing criminal tools; 2) CR-197240 - kidnapping and rape; 3) CR-28334 - aggravated murder; 4) CR-164758 - negligent assault; 5) CR- 164762 - receiving stolen property and possessing criminal tools; 6) CR-176305 - carrying concealed weapons; and 7) CR-178873 - carrying concealed weapons and having weapons while under disability. The respondent has filed a motion to dismiss per Civ.R. 12(B)(6) on the grounds that the relator's petition for a writ of mandamus fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In order to obtain the requested writ of mandamus, the relator must establish each prong of the following three-part test: 1) the relator possesses a clear legal right to the relief requested; 2) the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform the requested act; and 3) the relator possesses no plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Middleton Brd. of Edn. v. Butler Cty. Budget Comm. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 251; State ex rel. Westchester v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 42. Herein, the relator has failed to establish the -3- first and second prongs of the three-part test as established in Middleton and Westchester. The relator possesses no clear legal right to the transcripts of the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury proceedings which resulted in indictments in criminal cases CR-181233, CR-197240, CR-28334, CR-164758, CR-164762, CR-176305, and CR-178873 and thus has failed to establish the first prong of the three-part test. Crim.R. 6(E) specifically provides that grand jury proceedings are secret: *** Deliberations of the grand jury and the vote of any grand juror shall not be disclosed. Disclosure of other matters occurring before the grand jury may be made to the prosecuting attorney for use in the performance of his duties. A grand juror, prosecuting attorney, interpreter, stenographer, operator of a recording device, or typist who transcribes recorded testimony, may disclose matters occurring before the grand jury, other than the deliberations of a grand jury or the vote of a grand juror, but may disclose such matters only when so directed by the court preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding, or when permitted by the court at the request of the defendant upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury. In addition, the Supreme Court of Ohio has established that a defendant is not entitled to a transcript of grand jury proceedings unless the ends of justice require disclosure and there is a showing that a particularized need for disclosure exists which outweighs the need for secrecy. State v. Greer (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 139; State v. Patterson (1971), 28 Ohio -4- St.2d 181. In the case sub judice, the relator has not established the existence of a particularized need for disclosure of the requested grand jury transcripts which outweighs the need for secrecy. Therefore, the relator has failed to set forth a clear legal right to the requested grand jury transcripts. State v. Suskind (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 525. Further review of the petition for a writ of mandamus demonstrates that the relator has failed to establish the second prong of the three-part test as annunciated in Middleton and Westchester. No clear legal duty exists on the part of the respondent to provide the relator with the requested grand jury transcripts. As a matter of law, the court which supervises the grand jury is the sole legal entity that is empowered to release grand jury material. State ex rel. Collins v. O'Farrell (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 142; Douglas Oil Co. of California v. Petrol Stops Northwest (1979), 441 U.S. 211. As a result, the respondent possesses no clear legal duty to provide the relator with the requested grand jury transcripts. State ex rel. Malave v. Jones (Oct. 27, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66892, unreported. Accordingly, the respondent's motion to dismiss the relator's petition for a writ of mandamus is granted. Relator to bear costs. Writ dismissed. SARA J. HARPER, J. TERRENCE O'DONNELL, J. -5- DAVID T. MATIA PRESIDING JUDGE .