State ex rel. Hill v. Niehaus - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State ex rel. Hill, Appellant, v. Niehaus, Judge, et al.,
Appellees.
[Cite as State ex rel. Hill v. Niehaus (1994), Ohio
St.3d .]
Courts -- 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 being filed late.
(No. 93-1187 -- Submitted January 11, 1994 -- Decided
March 23, 1994.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No.
C-930266.
The facts are stated as alleged in the petition. In 1991,
a Hamilton County jury convicted Genesis Hill,
relator-appellant, of two counts of aggravated murder with
death specifications as well as aggravated burglary and
kidnapping. According to the trial transcript, on November 22,
1991, the jury announced its recommendation of the death
penalty. On December 11, 1991, respondent-appellee Richard A.
Niehaus, a Hamilton County common pleas court judge, sentenced
Hill to death on the aggravated murder counts and terms of
imprisonment for the burglary and kidnapping.
Thereafter, Hill appealed his convictions and death
sentence, and that case is still pending in the court of
appeals. According to the court records, the jury's sentence
recommendation was date-stamped as filed on November 19,
although the penalty hearing did not begin until November 20
and concluded on November 22, 1991. Also, Judge Niehaus failed
to file his death-sentence opinion as required by R.C.
2929.03(F).
Respondent-appellee Joseph Deters, then Hamilton County
Clerk of Courts, was responsible for the court records. Deters
is now the Prosecuting Attorney of Hamilton County.
On April 6, 1993, Hill filed this original mandamus and
prohibition action in the court of appeals. The prosecuting
attorney had filed earlier in the trial court a "Motion to
Correct the Record and Request to Refile Sentencing Opinion."
In that motion, the prosecutor asserted that because of a

clerical error, the sentencing verdict form reflected a
November 19 filing date rather than the true filing date of
November 22, 1991. After that motion, Judge Niehaus filed a
sentencing opinion.
In his mandamus and prohibition complaint, Hill asked the
court of appeals to (a) command the prosecutor to withdraw his
motion, (b) prohibit Judge Niehaus from granting or holding a
hearing on the prosecutor's motion, (c) strike from the record
Judge Niehaus's sentencing opinion in Hill's case, and (d)
prohibit Judge Niehaus from filing a sentencing opinion in
Hill's case.
The prosecutor moved to dismiss Hill's complaint because
Hill had an adequate legal remedy by raising these issues in
his pending appeal. In fact, Hill had done so. The court of
appeals agreed and dismissed the complaint.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of
right.

H. Fred Hoefle, Kenneth J. Koenig and Chuck Stidham, for
appellant.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney,
and Christian J. Schaefer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for
appellees.

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, either 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,
N.E.2d ; 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.