The father of a Mercer County high school teacher convicted of sexual battery believes he was wrongly denied access to records related to his son’s prosecution. The teacher was sentenced to 20 years in prison for a two-year sexual relationship he had with a student.

The Mercer County prosecutor and sheriff rejected the father’s 2017 requests, stating that the records fall under various exceptions in the Ohio Public Records Act. In their denials, the government officials point to a Facebook page the teacher’s parents have about justice for their son.

The father, Charles Summers, asks the Ohio Supreme Court for an order to force the prosecutor and sheriff to release the records. Sexual assault and domestic violence advocacy groups, as well as sheriff and prosecutor organizations, have filed amicus briefs in the case. All oppose the release of the records.

Student Testifies at Trial of Her Teacher
Summers son, Christopher Summers, was indicted on 47 counts stemming from a 26-month sexual relationship with a student while he was teaching at Fort Recovery High School. The student, identified as J.K., testified at the trial. Before she finished her testimony, Christopher Summers agreed to plead guilty to eight counts of sexual battery, and the trial court imposed a 20-year sentence.

In his public records requests, Charles Summers asked for video and audio recordings of interviews with the victim or any witnesses, recordings of phone calls, statements from the victim or her family members, police reports, notes, and various correspondence.

The Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office denied the public records requests made to its office and the Mercer County Sheriff’s Department, stating that the records are exempt. Among other exceptions cited, the prosecutor said the records were confidential investigatory techniques and work product, and Summers was acting on his son’s behalf, which requires additional steps for records release. The denials pointed in part to Charles Summers’ and his wife’s Facebook page.  Called “Justice for Chris,” the page states that they want people to “learn the whole truth behind what happened to our son.”

Father Maintains He’s Not His Son’s Designee
In his July 2018 request to the Ohio Supreme Court, Summers is seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the prosecutor and sheriff to release the records. Some of the materials were released to Summers following mediation. Others were released to a private investigator by Darke County, which prosecuted a similar case against Christopher Summers involving the same student.

Charles Summers argues the prosecutor can’t deny the release of the records based on how he intends to use them. He maintains he isn’t a “designee” for his son. Even if he were, he should have the same right to provide information to the public about government actions and injustices, he states. He adds that the record-requesting process for inmates or their designees in R.C. 149.43(B)(8) requires a judge’s approval, which Summers calls “an extraordinary burden.”

The prosecutor responds that the Facebook page shows that Summers is acting as his son’s designee, and Summers must follow the process in R.C. 149.43(B)(8). The office also states that Summers already has obtained, or has access to, many of the requested records. A private investigator requested records about the case from the Darke County Prosecutor’s Office on behalf of a website, run by Jeffrey Rasawehr, that has published information about the case.

Victim Argues for Right to Privacy
J.K., who is represented by the Ohio Crime Victim Justice Center, filed a brief in this case as an intervening party. She points to the provision in R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(v), which bars the release of records if it would violate state or federal law. She argues she has a right to privacy, as has been recognized by federal courts based on the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. She also cites a 1956 Ohio Supreme Court case as well as Marsy’s Law, a 2017 amendment to the Ohio Constitution that mandates certain crime victim rights, including the right “to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s safety, dignity, and privacy.”

Summers contends that J.K. waived any rights to privacy by testifying publicly at the trial. Regardless, he argues, the Public Records Act lists exceptions specifically for crime victims – such as prohibiting the release of certain images or videos – and none apply to his requests. Marsy’s Law doesn’t stop the release of the records either, also because no crime-victim exceptions in the public records law applies and because she testified at the trial, Summers maintains.

Oral Argument Details
The Supreme Court will consider four cases on April 7. This case – Summers v. Fox – along with three others will be heard on April 8. Oral arguments begin at 9 a.m. All arguments are streamed live online at sc.ohio.gov, and broadcast live and archived on The Ohio Channel.

In addition to these highlights, the Court’s Office of Public Information released preview articles today about each case, available through the case-name links.

Tuesday, April 7
A company specializing in disposing of waste materials from oil and gas drilling constructed two saltwater wells in Trumbull County, investing nearly $7 million. In July and August 2014, seismic activity registered near the site, but wasn’t strong enough to make the ground shake. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources suspended the operations and required the company to present a comprehensive plan to reopen. The company, in State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions v. Zehringer, argues the agency has yet to accept a reasonable plan and that the state’s closure of the well constitutes a “taking” that requires the state compensate it.

An Erie County man was found guilty of participating in a gang and sentenced in 2015 to five years of community control. After violating the conditions of his community control, he was placed under house arrest. A trial court eventually revoked his community control and imposed a five-year prison sentence. The county prosecutor argues in State v. Reed that the man’s time on house arrest doesn’t get credited against his sentence. The man counters that, without credit for house arrest, defendants are receiving increased penalties for their crimes.

Divorced parents who had a shared parenting plan each subsequently asked for full custody of their daughter. Their shared plan was terminated, and the juvenile court gave custody to the girl’s mother. Bruns v. Green centers on the different ways a state law allows for modification or termination of parenting plans. The father argues that terminating an agreement is a type of modification, so the Franklin County court was required to make findings of a change in circumstances. The mother disagrees, maintaining that part of the law addresses terminations and that provision doesn’t require the court to make formal findings.

A father-son attorney duo face disciplinary sanctions for their actions while representing a church pastor accused of raping two minors. The Board of Professional Conduct recommends the father be suspended for two years with one year stayed because he launched a last-minute legal strategy of refusing to participate in the trial, hoping to cause a mistrial. The board recommends a public reprimand for his son based on disparaging social media posts he made about the presiding judge. In Erie-Huron County Bar Association v. Kenneth Ronald Bailey and Kenneth Richard Bailey, only the father is objecting to his proposed sanction.

Wednesday, April 8
In 2015, state officials found an oil well driller violated pollution laws, and the state held the well owner responsible. The well owner negotiated a $50,000 fine and notified the driller afterward. Citing an indemnification clause in the drilling contract, the well owner sought more than $60,000 from the driller for the incident. In Discovery Oil and Gas v. Wildcat Drilling, the Court will consider the driller’s argument that it doesn’t have to reimburse the owner because it wasn’t notified of the negotiations, which is one of three factors required for reimbursement set out in a 1944 Ohio Supreme Court decision. The well owner argues the Court’s factors apply only to situations where there is no written contract requiring indemnification.

In 2016, an Ohio-based freight broker arranged for a trucking company to transport a load of organic apples. The truck trailer caught on fire and destroyed all the apples. The apple owner demanded $86,000 in payment from the broker and assigned the broker its rights to sue the trucking company. Citing an indemnification clause in the trucking contract, the broker demanded that the carrier reimburse it for the loss. In Total Quality Logistics v. JK & R Express, the Court will consider the carrier’s argument that it doesn’t have to reimburse the owner because the broker wasn’t legally responsible for the apple owner’s loss, which is one of three factors required for reimbursement set out in a 1944 Ohio Supreme Court decision. The broker argues the Court’s factors apply only to situations where there is no written contract requiring indemnification.

In Disciplinary Counsel v. Cramer, a Cleveland attorney is facing an indefinite suspension for her actions in a Franklin County court. After her mother died, the attorney was appointed to handle only the sale of a Columbus house that her mother owned. However, the probate court later removed her from the role. The attorney criticized the magistrate, judge, opposing counsel, and other court officials. The professional conduct board states that the attorney claimed the new administrator for the real-estate matter was appointed for political reasons, the magistrate didn’t want to do the work necessary, and much more misconduct. The attorney argues she wasn’t disrespectful, but the probate court violated state law and court rules.