Introduction

This commentary analyzes the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in State ex rel. Rankin v. State, 2025-Ohio-4483, a per curiam opinion affirming the Fourth District Court of Appeals’ dismissal of a mandamus action brought by a private citizen, Bryan Rankin. The decision squarely addresses whether a private-citizen affidavit submitted under R.C. 2935.09 creates a right to compel prosecution and whether a prosecutor bears a clear legal duty to prosecute offenses alleged in such an affidavit. It also resolves a procedural motion concerning compliance with the Supreme Court Rules of Practice.

Rankin alleged that a trial witness committed perjury during his criminal case for interference with custody, and that the presiding judge, Adams County Court Judge Roy E. Gabbert, made a knowingly false statement about the status of a police report as a public record, thereby violating Rankin’s rights and the judge’s oath. After a special prosecutor declined to pursue charges, Rankin sought a writ of mandamus compelling prosecution by Adams County Prosecutor Aaron Haslam and Brown County Prosecutor Zachary Corbin.

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Rankin’s amended petition, holding that a private citizen has no clear legal right to prosecution of alleged offenses and prosecutors have no clear legal duty to prosecute charges identified in a private-citizen affidavit. The Court also denied Rankin’s motion to strike the appellees’ brief.

Summary of the Opinion

• Mandamus Relief: The Court held that Rankin failed to state a claim for mandamus because he could not establish either (1) a clear legal right to have the alleged offenses prosecuted or (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the prosecutors to prosecute. It reiterated that R.C. 2935.09 and R.C. 2935.10 do not mandate prosecution of offenses charged by private-citizen affidavit.
• Abuse-of-Discretion Argument: The Court declined to consider Rankin’s argument that the prosecutors abused their discretion in declining prosecution because that theory was not pleaded in his amended petition and was not addressed by the court of appeals.
• Motion to Strike: The Court denied Rankin’s motion to strike the appellees’ merit brief, reaffirming that under S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03(B)(1) an appellee must address each “contention,” not each “proposition of law,” and that briefs are not struck absent prejudice to the opposing party or impediment to the Court’s review.
• Disposition: The judgment of the Fourth District Court of Appeals dismissing the amended petition under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was affirmed; the motion to strike was denied.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• State ex rel. Casey v. Brown, 2023-Ohio-2264: The Court applied the de novo standard for reviewing a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal in mandamus and reiterated the pleading standard—accept well-pleaded facts as true and determine whether it appears beyond doubt the relator can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Casey anchored the procedural framework for assessing Rankin’s amended petition.
• State ex rel. A.N. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2021-Ohio-2071: The Court quoted A.N. for two points: the dismissal standard and, critically, the settled rule that a prosecutor has no clear duty to prosecute an offense alleged in a private-citizen affidavit. A.N. is a direct and controlling precedent that forecloses mandamus to compel prosecution in this context.
• State ex rel. Boylen v. Harmon, 2006-Ohio-7, and State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept. of Law, 1998-Ohio-128: These decisions establish and reinforce the principle that R.C. 2935.09 does not mandate prosecution of all offenses charged by affidavit. By invoking Boylen and Evans, the Court demonstrated that the non-mandatory nature of prosecution following a private-citizen affidavit is long-standing law in Ohio.
• State ex rel. Capron v. Dattilio, 2016-Ohio-1504, and State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 2016-Ohio-5781: Both cases reaffirm that prosecutors have no clear legal duty to bring charges alleged via private-citizen affidavits. These precedents further solidify that mandamus is unavailable as a vehicle to force prosecutorial charging decisions.
• State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner, 1997-Ohio-154: The Court cited Strothers to summarize the procedural path set by R.C. 2935.10(A) when a private-citizen affidavit alleges a felony—either issuance of a warrant or referral to the prosecuting attorney for investigation, unless the affidavit lacks merit or good faith. Strothers clarifies process, not outcome, confirming that the statutes regulate initial handling but do not compel prosecution.
• State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 2024-Ohio-1387, and During v. Quoico, 2012-Ohio-2990 (10th Dist.): These authorities support the appellate principle that a party cannot change the theory of the case on appeal. The Court used them to decline consideration of Rankin’s abuse-of-discretion theory first advanced at the Supreme Court stage.
• Rance v. Watson, 2022-Ohio-1822; State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177; and State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 2006-Ohio-903: Collectively, these cases interpret S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03(B)(1) and set out the Court’s reluctance to strike briefs absent prejudice or hindrance. They guided the denial of Rankin’s motion to strike the appellees’ brief.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds in three methodical steps—procedural posture, the mandamus elements, and ancillary procedural motions.

1. Procedural Posture and Scope: The Court reviewed de novo the Fourth District’s Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal. It confined its analysis to the theories actually pleaded and addressed below. Because Rankin’s amended petition did not allege “abuse of prosecutorial discretion,” the Court declined to consider that theory on appeal.
2. Mandamus Elements Not Met:
   • Clear Legal Right: The Court held that a private citizen who files an affidavit under R.C. 2935.09 does not acquire a clear legal right to have the respondent prosecuted. R.C. 2935.09 and 2935.10 regulate intake and preliminary steps (warrant or referral) but do not mandate prosecution (Boylen; Evans). Consequently, Rankin lacked a clear legal right to the relief sought.
   • Clear Legal Duty: Even if Rankin had some right, he still failed because prosecutors have no clear legal duty to prosecute allegations contained in private-citizen affidavits (A.N.; Capron; Bunting). R.C. 2935.10(A) requires, at most, that a judge issue a warrant or refer the matter to the prosecutor for investigation—actions that occurred here. The statutes do not impose a duty on the prosecutor to initiate charges after investigation.
   • Adequate Remedy at Law: Because the first two elements failed, the Court did not need to reach the “adequate remedy” inquiry. The failure on the clear-right and clear-duty prongs was dispositive.
3. Motion to Strike: The Court rejected Rankin’s interpretation of S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03(B), clarifying that an appellee must address each “contention,” not each “proposition of law” (Rance). Furthermore, consistent with Sultaana and Physicians Committee, the Court will not strike briefs absent prejudice to the opposing party or interference with the Court’s review—neither of which Rankin showed.

Impact and Practical Implications

• Reinforced Prosecutorial Discretion: The decision strengthens the wall around prosecutorial charging discretion, confirming that courts will not compel prosecutors to file charges based on private-citizen affidavits. Prosecutorial discretion remains a core executive function not subject to mandamus absent a specific statutory duty.
• Clarification of R.C. 2935.09/2935.10: Citizens may still file affidavits alleging crimes. If the affidavit alleges a felony and is not facially meritless or filed in bad faith, the statute requires either issuance of an arrest warrant or referral to a prosecutor for investigation. Once referred, however, prosecutorial decisions are discretionary and not enforceable through mandamus.
• Strategic Guidance for Litigants: Litigants cannot reframe their theory on appeal. Allegations of abuse of discretion (to the extent cognizable at all in this context) must be clearly pleaded and developed in the court of appeals. Even then, longstanding precedent makes clear that mandamus will not lie to control a prosecutor’s charging decisions.
• Appellate Practice—Briefing Rules: The opinion underscores that appellees must address “contentions,” not necessarily mirror the appellant’s “propositions of law.” Motions to strike will be disfavored where no prejudice or impediment to review is shown.
• Institutional Interests—Separation of Powers: The decision functions as a separation-of-powers safeguard, preventing judicial compulsion of executive charging decisions based on private complaints. It reduces the risk of using mandamus to circumvent prosecutorial screening.
• Lower Courts and Clerks: While not the issue here, the opinion situates the proper role of courts under R.C. 2935.10: ensuring either issuance of a warrant or referral for investigation upon a sufficiently supported felony affidavit. Once referral occurs (as in Rankin), no further duty to prosecute arises.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mandamus: An extraordinary judicial remedy used to compel a public official to perform a specific duty required by law. To obtain mandamus, a relator must prove by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the respondent’s part to provide it, and (3) no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
• Private-Citizen Affidavit (R.C. 2935.09): A mechanism allowing a private citizen to file an affidavit charging a criminal offense with a court clerk. For felony allegations, R.C. 2935.10 requires either an arrest warrant or referral to the prosecutor for investigation (unless the affidavit lacks merit or good faith). These statutes do not require that charges be filed or prosecuted.
• Prosecutorial Discretion: The authority of a prosecutor to decide whether to initiate criminal charges. In Ohio, this discretion is broad and is not subject to mandamus to compel prosecution based on a private-citizen affidavit.
• Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and De Novo Review: A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the sufficiency of the pleadings. On appeal, courts review dismissals de novo, meaning they independently assess whether, assuming the pleaded facts are true, the relator could be entitled to relief.
• S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.03(B): Ohio Supreme Court briefing rule requiring an appellee to address each “contention” raised by the appellant. The Court generally does not strike briefs for technical imperfections absent prejudice or interference with judicial review.

Case Background and Procedural Timeline

• July 2024: Rankin filed a private-citizen affidavit in Adams County Court alleging (1) perjury by a trial witness (R.C. 2921.11(F) classifies perjury as a third-degree felony), and (2) that Judge Roy E. Gabbert knowingly made a false statement about a police report not being a public record, allegedly violating Rankin’s rights and the judge’s oath.
• Referral and Declination: The affidavit was referred to the Adams County Prosecutor’s Office and then to a special prosecutor in Brown County. After investigation, the special prosecutor declined to pursue charges and filed notice that the State exercised its discretion not to prosecute.
• August 2024: Rankin filed a mandamus action in the Fourth District seeking to compel prosecution, initially focused on the witness. He later filed an amended petition and an “amended legal affidavit” elaborating on the perjury claim; references to Judge Gabbert’s alleged conduct were omitted. Through a separate motion, he clarified he also sought to compel prosecution of Judge Gabbert.
• Fourth District: The court granted appellees’ Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissed the amended petition, holding there is no clear legal duty to prosecute offenses alleged in a private-citizen affidavit. Rankin’s public-records claim was also dismissed; he later conceded that dismissal was proper.
• Supreme Court of Ohio: On appeal as of right, the Court affirmed the dismissal and denied Rankin’s motion to strike the appellees’ brief. A prior motion by Rankin to appoint counsel was denied (2025-Ohio-39).

Key Takeaways

• Filing a private-citizen affidavit under R.C. 2935.09 does not create a right to prosecution, and prosecutors have no corresponding duty to charge alleged offenders based on such affidavits.
• R.C. 2935.10 prescribes initial processing (warrant or referral) for felony allegations that are not facially meritless or filed in bad faith, but stops short of mandating prosecution.
• Mandamus cannot be used to control prosecutorial charging decisions; it requires a clear legal right and a clear legal duty—both absent here.
• Appellants must present their theories in the court of appeals; new theories (e.g., abuse of discretion) raised for the first time in the Supreme Court will not be considered.
• Appellees need only address the appellant’s “contentions,” not mirror “propositions of law,” and briefs will not be struck absent demonstrated prejudice or impediment to adjudication.

Conclusion

State ex rel. Rankin v. State reaffirms a stable and important doctrinal line in Ohio law: private-citizen affidavits initiate a process but do not command an outcome. Prosecutorial discretion remains insulated from judicial compulsion via mandamus, and R.C. 2935.09/.10 do not create enforceable rights to prosecution. The Court’s decision also underscores disciplined appellate practice—issues must be preserved below, and motions to strike will fail absent meaningful prejudice.

As a result, Ohio courts and prosecutors retain a clear and predictable framework for handling private-citizen affidavits: referral and investigation where appropriate, followed by discretionary charging decisions that are not subject to mandamus. For litigants, the opinion provides a roadmap of what mandamus cannot accomplish and clarifies the procedural expectations for appellate briefing before the state’s highest court.

Citations Highlighted in the Opinion

• R.C. 2935.09(D); R.C. 2935.10(A)
• R.C. 2921.11(F) (perjury classification)
• State ex rel. Casey v. Brown, 2023-Ohio-2264
• State ex rel. A.N. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 2021-Ohio-2071
• State ex rel. Boylen v. Harmon, 2006-Ohio-7
• State ex rel. Evans v. Columbus Dept. of Law, 1998-Ohio-128
• State ex rel. Capron v. Dattilio, 2016-Ohio-1504
• State ex rel. Bunting v. Styer, 2016-Ohio-5781
• State ex rel. Strothers v. Turner, 1997-Ohio-154
• State ex rel. S.Y.C. v. Floyd, 2024-Ohio-1387
• During v. Quoico, 2012-Ohio-2990 (10th Dist.)
• Rance v. Watson, 2022-Ohio-1822
• State ex rel. Sultaana v. Mansfield Corr. Inst., 2023-Ohio-1177
• State ex rel. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Medicine v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 2006-Ohio-903