Whenever an investigation into the facts of any case, civil or criminal, pending at the time of such investigation in any court, is made, conducted, or participated in, directly or indirectly, by any court or any department thereof, through public employees, paid private investigators, social workers, friends of the court, or any other persons, and a report of such investigation is prepared for submission to the court, the contents of such report shall not be considered by any judge of the court wherein such case is pending either before the trial of the case or at any stage of the proceedings prior to final disposition thereof, unless the full contents of such report have been made readily available and accessible to all parties to the case or their counsel. The parties or their counsel shall be notified in writing of the fact that an investigation has been made, that a report has been submitted, and that the contents of the report are available for examination. Such notice shall be given at least five days prior to the time the contents of any report are to be considered by any judge of the court wherein the case is pending. In the event that a report following any investigation is prepared for submission orally, such oral report shall be reduced to writing prior to the issuance of notice of the availability of such report for examination.
This section does not apply only to the utilization of the contents of such reports as testimony, but shall prevent any judge from familiarizing himself with such contents in any manner unless this section has been fully complied with.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1954–2020 · leading case: Roach v. Roach, 607 N.E.2d 35 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Roach v. Roach, 607 N.E.2d 35 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 7ד39: “Whenever an investigation into the facts of any case, civil or criminal, pending at the time of such investigation in any court, is made * * * by any court * * * or any other persons, and a report of such investigation is prepared for submission to the court, the contents…”
Wilburn v. Wilburn, 863 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4דThe mother contends that these are violations of R.C. 2317.39 and that the report cannot be used by the trial court.”
Sayre v. Hoelzle-Sayre, 653 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4דAppellant sets forth R.C. 2317.39, 2317.36, and Civ.R. 75(D) as controlling.”
Beamer v. Beamer, 244 N.E.2d 775 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 10דThe complaint of plaintiff is that no notice of the report was made pursuant to Section 2317.39, Revised Code. The provision for an investigation by the court in divorce proceedings where the custody of children is involved was originally introduced into Ohio law in 1938.”
Miller v. Miller, 685 N.E.2d 319 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5דHowever, a court is authorized to admit such reports as testimony only when the contents of that report are made available to the parties and utilized by the court in accordance with R.C. 2317.39. Id. R.C. 2317.39 13 states: “Whenever an investigation into the facts of any case,…”
Inman v. Inman, 655 N.E.2d 199 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “The trial court erred when it admitted into evidence the guardian ad litem’s report which was submitted more than two months after the hearing, was never submitted to counsel, and was submitted in direct contravention to R.C. 2317.39. “6. The trial court erred when it admitted…”
State v. Ward, 474 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio 1984). “See, for example, R.C. 2317.39 and 2317.42 regarding public records.”
In re A.B., 2020 Ohio 3904 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “The juvenile court erred as a matter of law and violated R.C. 2317.39 by considering a psychological evaluation without providing notice of the report or making its contents available to the parties prior to its use on February 26, 2019.”
In re Guardianship of Smith, 2011 Ohio 6496 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3ד{¶ 27} With regard to Stewart’s argument concerning the report of the court’s investigator, we note that Stewart references R.C. 2317.39. That statute states that a court cannot consider any report created during a court-ordered investigation unless the report is “made readily…”
Hirsi v. Davis Creek Auto Sales, 2016 Ohio 7569 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “See, for example, R.C. 2317.39 and 2317.42 regarding public records.”
State v. Vance, 191 N.E.2d 737 (Ohio Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 3דFurthermore, in 1951 the General Assembly enacted a supplemental section, Section 11521-1, to the General Code, carried into the Revised Code as Section 2317.39, reading as follows : “Whenever an investigation into the facts of any case, civil or criminal, pending at the time of…”
State v. Smith, 281 N.E.2d 17 (Ohio Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 2ד(4) The State’s failure to give the required notice to appellant of the intended use of the probation report violated Section 2317.39 of the Ohio Revised Code and was prejudicial error.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.