ROMINGER LEGAL
Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
Need Legal Help?
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.

 
Web Rominger Legal

Legal News - Legal Headlines

 

In re Grand Jury.
[Cite as In re Grand Jury (1996), __ Ohio St.3d __.]
Appellate procedure -- Final appealable order -- Denial of a motion to
quash a grand jury subpoena decus tecum is not a special
proceeding under R.C. 2505.02.

(No. 95-1334 -- Submitted June 4, 1996 -- Decided August 7, 1996.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Washington County, Nos.
93CA09, 93CA10 and 93CA12.

Attorney James F. Dunn represented appellant Samuel Metz against
charges of juvenile delinquency by reason of aggravated murder, aggravated
robbery, and aggravated burglary. In the course of representing Metz, Dunn
secured a taped recording of appellant Michael Elkins, Metz's friend, allegedly
confessing to the aggravated murder with which Metz was charged.1 Dunn
revealed the contents of the tape to prosecutors during plea negotiations on
behalf of Metz.

Thereafter, prosecutors issued two subpoenas duces tecum to Dunn on
separate occasions requiring him to appear before the Washington County

Grand Jury and produce the tape. Although he appeared before the grand jury
both times, Dunn refused to produce the tape or to answer any questions about
it, alleging that such information was protected by the attorney-client privilege
and the work product doctrine.

Elkins's attorney filed a motion to quash the subpoena while the
prosecutor filed a "Memorandum in Support of Subpoena and Motion for In
Camera Hearing," which was, essentially, a motion to compel Dunn to produce
the tape and answer questions before the grand jury. The trial court found that
there was no attorney-client relationship between Elkins and Dunn and,
consequently, the tape was not privileged material. The trial court also rejected
Dunn's argument that the tape was protected work product. Based on these
findings, the court overruled Elkins's motion to quash, granted the prosecutor's
motion to compel, and ordered Dunn to produce the tape and to answer
questions in regard to it. Ultimately, the trial court held Dunn in the
Washington County Jail for contempt of the court's order when Dunn
continued to refuse to produce the tape.
2


Elkins and Metz appealed the trial court's order denying the motion to
quash and Dunn appealed the trial court's order holding him in contempt. The
Fourth District Court of Appeals dismissed the appeals of both Metz and
Elkins. The court held that Metz's appeal failed for lack of standing because
he was not a party to the proceedings in the trial court. The court dismissed
Elkins's appeal for lack of a final appealable order, finding that the denial of a
motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum was not a special
proceeding under R.C. 2505.02. The court of appeals also held that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in holding Dunn in contempt.

This cause is now before the court upon the allowance of a discretionary
appeal.

Michael G. Spahr, Washington County Prosecuting Attorney, Allison L.
Cauthorn-Kreiss and Kevin A. Rings, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for
appellee state of Ohio.
3


David H. Bodiker, Ohio Public Defender, Randall L. Porter and Randy
D. Ashburn, Assistant Public Defenders; and Pamela Prude-Smithers,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, for appellant Michael Elkins.

Warner & Warner Co., L.P.A., and Roger Warner, for appellant Samuel
Metz.
Cook, J. In this case, we revisit the issue of final appealable orders and,
in so doing, affirm the court of appeals. In Polikoff v. Adam (1993), 67 Ohio
St.3d 100, 616 N.E.2d 213, at syllabus, we stated, "Orders that are entered in
actions that were recognized at common law or in equity and were not specially
created by statute are not orders entered in special proceedings pursuant to R.C.
2505.02." Grand jury proceedings, having existed at common law, are not
"special proceedings," notwithstanding the fact that they have been codified.
See State ex rel Doerfler v. Price (1920), 101 Ohio St. 50, 54, 128 N.E. 173,
175; R.C. 2941.02 et seq.
Judgment
affirmed.
4


MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and STRATTON,
JJ., concur.
FOOTNOTE
1 Appellee notes that the record in Washington County Common Pleas Court
case No. 95 CR 82 reflects that Elkins pled guilty to the aggravated murder,
aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary at issue.
5

 

Ask a Lawyer

 

 

FREE CASE REVIEW BY A LOCAL LAWYER!
|
|
\/

Personal Injury Law
Accidents
Dog Bite
Legal Malpractice
Medical Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
Libel & Slander
Product Liability
Slip & Fall
Torts
Workplace Injury
Wrongful Death
Auto Accidents
Motorcycle Accidents
Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Business/Corporate Law
Business Formation
Business Planning
Franchising
Tax Planning
Traffic/Transportation Law
Moving Violations
Routine Infractions
Lemon Law
Manufacturer Defects
Securities Law
Securities Litigation
Shareholder Disputes
Insider Trading
Foreign Investment
Wills & Estates

Wills

Trusts
Estate Planning
Family Law
Adoption
Child Abuse
Child Custody
Child Support
Divorce - Contested
Divorce - Uncontested
Juvenile Criminal Law
Premarital Agreements
Spousal Support
Labor/Employment Law
Wrongful Termination
Sexual Harassment
Age Discrimination
Workers Compensation
Real Estate/Property Law
Condemnation / Eminent Domain
Broker Litigation
Title Litigation
Landlord/Tenant
Buying/Selling/Leasing
Foreclosures
Residential Real Estate Litigation
Commercial Real Estate Litigation
Construction Litigation
Banking/Finance Law
Debtor/Creditor
Consumer Protection
Venture Capital
Constitutional Law
Discrimination
Police Misconduct
Sexual Harassment
Privacy Rights
Criminal Law
DUI / DWI / DOI
Assault & Battery
White Collar Crimes
Sex Crimes
Homocide Defense
Civil Law
Insurance Bad Faith
Civil Rights
Contracts
Estate Planning, Wills & Trusts
Litigation/Trials
Social Security
Worker's Compensation
Probate, Will & Trusts
Intellectual Property
Patents
Trademarks
Copyrights
Tax Law
IRS Disputes
Filing/Compliance
Tax Planning
Tax Power of Attorney
Health Care Law
Disability
Elder Law
Government/Specialty Law
Immigration
Education
Trade Law
Agricultural/Environmental
IRS Issues

 


Google
Search Rominger Legal


 


LEGAL HELP FORUM - Potential Client ? Post your question.
LEGAL HELP FORUM - Attorney? Answer Questions, Maybe get hired!

NOW - CASE LAW - All 50 States - Federal Courts - Try it for FREE


 


Get Legal News
Enter your Email


Preview

We now have full text legal news
drawn from all the major sources!!

ADD A SEARCH ENGINE TO YOUR PAGE!!!

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT ROMINGER LEGAL

Ask Your Legal Question Now.

Pennsylvania Lawyer Help Board

Find An Attorney

TERMS OF USE - DISCLAIMER - LINKING POLICIES

Created and Developed by
Rominger Legal
Copyright 1997 - 2010.

A Division of
ROMINGER, INC.