State v. Szuch Fishery 12, L.L.C.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Szuch Fishery 12, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-1431.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ASHTABULA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, CASE NOS. 2024-A-0010 2024-A-0011 2024-A-0012 Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, Criminal Appeals from the Court of Common Pleas - vs SZUCH FISHERY 12 LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants. Trial Court Nos. 2023 CR 00279 2023 CR 00280 2023 CR 00281 MEMORANDUM OPINION Decided: April 15, 2024 Judgment: Appeals and Cross-Appeals dismissed Colleen M. O’Toole, Ashtabula County Prosecutor, Christopher R. Fortunato and Matthew J. Hebebrand, Assistant Prosecutors, 25 West Jefferson Street, Jefferson, OH 44047 (For Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee). Erik Wineland, Rohrbacher Trimble & Zimmerman Co., LPA, 405 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, Toledo, OH 43604 (For Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants). JOHN J. EKLUND, J. {¶1} On January 22, 2024, the trial court entered a judgment ruling on four motions: defendants’ motions 1) for Handwriting Exemplar from Matthew Faust; 2) for review of grand jury testimony; 3) to dismiss the indictment for tampering with records; and 4) the state of Ohio’s motion to quash defendants’ three subpoenas. {¶2} On motion one, the court stated “Counsel conceded this motion is now moot * * *. Therefore, the Motion is withdrawn.” {¶3} On motion two, the court stated that “the Court concludes that Defendants have shown a particularized need to have the grand jury transcript reviewed to determine if the mistaken information was presented to the grand jury. A failure to review the grand jury testimony would likely deprive the Defendants of a fair trial, and the particularized need shown by the Defendants outweighs the need for secrecy.” {¶4} “Therefore, Defendants’ Motion for Review of Grand Jury Testimony is Granted. Accordingly, the Court will examine the grand jury transcript in camera * * *. After the review * * * the Court may provide counsel with those portions of the transcript relevant to the issue * * *. The transcript * * * shall be provided to the Court and shall remain non-public and be filed under seal.” {¶5} On motion three, the court stated that “Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for Tampering With Records is held in abeyance” pending the in camera review of the grand jury testimony. {¶6} The court denied motion four, holding the documents sought were “evidentiary and relevant” and “not otherwise procurable reasonably in advance of trial” and were sought in good faith. {¶7} Appellant/cross-appellee, “appellant,” has appealed from the rulings on motions two and four. On motion two, the court made findings and ordered an in camera review of grand jury transcripts. It did not order production of the transcripts to anyone. That ruling is not a final appealable order. See Daher v. Cuyahoga Community College District, 155 Ohio St.3d 271; 2018-Ohio-4462. As to motion four, the court merely denied a motion to quash subpoenas. It neither ordered production of evidence nor prevented 2 Case Nos. 2024-A-0010, 2024-A-0011, 2024-A-0012 it. That is not a final appealable order. See State v. Pecsi, 11th Dist. Geauga Nos. 2021G-0019, 2021-G-0020, 2021-G-0021, 2021-Ohio-3565. {¶8} As to appellees’ cross-appeals, in the absence of a direct appeal from a conviction, appellees do not have an immediate right to appeal. See State v. Cook, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 07 CA 39, 2007-Ohio-6446, ¶ 15-16. {¶9} Further, appellees state on their cross-appeals that they are appealing the January 22, 2024 entry “declaring that the Defendants’ Motion for a Handwriting Exemplar withdrawn and failing to find that the State committed a fraud upon the court.” These are pretrial matters that are not immediately appealable because appellees have not been convicted and sentenced. See Pecsi, ¶ 11-13. {¶10} Accordingly, the appeals and cross-appeals are dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. {¶11} Appeals and cross-appeals dismissed. MARY JANE TRAPP, J., ROBERT J. PATTON, J., concur. 3 Case Nos. 2024-A-0010, 2024-A-0011, 2024-A-0012
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
