Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

subpoenaappealtrialmotionwillleasedomestic violencegrand jury
subpoenaappealtrialwillleasedomestic violencegrand jury

Related Cases

In re Marriage of Smith, 225 Cal.App.3d 469, 274 Cal.Rptr. 911, 59 USLW 2388
View Case »
Stern v. County Court In and For County of Grand, 773 P.2d 1074, 58 USLW 2042, 16 A.L.R.5th 882
View Case »
Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 109 S.Ct. 594, 102 L.Ed.2d 624
View Case »
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 165 L.Ed.2d 723, 74 USLW 4579, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5677, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8443, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 452
View Case »
Powell v. State of Ala., 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A.L.R. 527
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Directed to Keeper of Records of My Sister’s Place, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2002 WL 31341083, 2002 -Ohio- 5600

Facts

After a domestic violence complaint was filed against William A. Stanley, the state sought to locate the victim, Theresa Graham, but was unable to do so. The state then issued a grand jury subpoena to My Sister's Place, a women's shelter, requesting Graham's address and telephone number. The shelter filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that disclosing this information would compromise the safety of domestic violence victims and that the law required such information to remain confidential.

After a domestic violence complaint was filed against William A. Stanley, the state sought to locate the victim, Theresa Graham, but was unable to do so. The state then issued a grand jury subpoena to My Sister's Place, a women's shelter, requesting Graham's address and telephone number.

Issue

Did the trial court err in quashing the grand jury subpoena for the address and telephone number of a domestic violence victim, based on the confidentiality provisions of R.C. 3113.40?

Did the trial court err in quashing the grand jury subpoena for the address and telephone number of a domestic violence victim, based on the confidentiality provisions of R.C. 3113.40?

Rule

R.C. 3113.40 mandates that the address and telephone number of a person provided accommodations by a domestic violence victims shelter are confidential and may only be released to a public children services agency.

R.C. 3113.40 states: “When a shelter for victims of domestic violence provides accommodations to a person, the shelter, on admitting the person, shall determine, if possible, the person's last known residential address and county of residence. The information concerning the address and county of residence is confidential and may be released only to a public children services agency pursuant to section 2151.422 of the Revised Code.”

Analysis

The court determined that the plain language of R.C. 3113.40 clearly prohibits the release of a domestic violence victim's address and telephone number to anyone other than a public children services agency. The court emphasized that the state did not demonstrate that the circumstances warranted an exception to this confidentiality rule, and thus upheld the shelter's motion to quash the subpoena.

The court determined that the plain language of R.C. 3113.40 clearly prohibits the release of a domestic violence victim's address and telephone number to anyone other than a public children services agency.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to quash the subpoena, reinforcing the confidentiality protections for domestic violence victims.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to quash the subpoena, reinforcing the confidentiality protections for domestic violence victims.

Who won?

My Sister's Place prevailed in the case because the court upheld the confidentiality provisions of R.C. 3113.40, which protect the addresses and telephone numbers of domestic violence victims from disclosure.

My Sister's Place prevailed in the case because the court upheld the confidentiality provisions of R.C. 3113.40, which protect the addresses and telephone numbers of domestic violence victims from disclosure.

You must be