State ex rel. Whittaker v. Lucas Cty. Prosecutor's Office

2021-Ohio-1241 (Ohio 2021) · Supreme Court of Ohio · April 14, 2021 · No. 2020-1127

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the grant of summary judgment against Michael Whittaker’s mandamus action seeking to compel the Lucas County Prosecutor’s Office to file felonious-assault charges. The court held that Ohio’s citizen-affidavit statute does not create a clear legal right to prosecution and that the prosecutor’s decision not to pursue additional charges was within prosecutorial discretion.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Maureen O'Connor, Chief Justice; Maureen O'Connor; Maureen O'Connor, C.J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
April 14, 2021
Docket number
2020-1127
Procedural posture
Appeal as of right from the Sixth District Court of Appeals' grant of summary judgment for the Lucas County Prosecutor's Office in an original mandamus action.
Standard of review
Summary-judgment decisions are reviewed de novo. A mandamus relator must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, a clear legal duty on the respondent to provide it, and the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, by clear and convincing evidence.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Michael Whittaker v. Lucas County Prosecutor's Office
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureremediesappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal proceduremandamusprosecutorial discretionappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a citizen affidavit filed under R.C. 2935.09 gives a private citizen a clear legal right to compel a prosecutor to file and pursue criminal charges.
  2. Whether the prosecutor abused her discretion by declining to bring additional felonious-assault charges after the alleged offenders had already been prosecuted on child-endangering charges.
  3. Whether summary judgment for the prosecutor was proper.

Holdings

  1. R.C. 2935.09 permits a private citizen to file an affidavit alleging a criminal offense, but it does not require the prosecutor to prosecute every offense alleged in the affidavit.
  2. Whittaker lacked a clear legal right to compel prosecution of felonious-assault charges because the decision whether to pursue criminal charges is vested in the state and is generally within the prosecutor's discretion.
  3. Summary judgment for the prosecutor was proper because Whittaker could not establish a clear legal right to the requested relief or a clear legal duty on the prosecutor to provide it.

Key quotations

R.C. 2935.09 allows a private citizen to file an affidavit alleging a criminal offense, but it does not require the prosecutor to prosecute all offenses alleged by a private citizen. (¶ 10)
The decision whether to pursue criminal charges is ultimately vested in the state, not with a private citizen. (¶ 11)
the decision whether to prosecute is discretionary, and not generally subject to judicial review (¶ 11)

Factual background

Whittaker's infant daughter sustained life-threatening injuries while temporarily in the care of Courtnie Lykans and Ronald Collins Jr. Both individuals were indicted on child-endangering charges and later entered pleas. Whittaker submitted a citizen affidavit alleging felonious assault, but the prosecutor determined that additional charges were not warranted because there was no direct or new evidence linking the caregivers to the injuries. Whittaker then sought mandamus to compel prosecution of the felonious-assault charges.

Procedural history

Whittaker filed a complaint in the Sixth District Court of Appeals seeking to compel the prosecutor's office to bring felonious-assault charges against two caregivers of his infant daughter. The court of appeals granted summary judgment for the prosecutor, and Whittaker appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…