The Supreme Court of Ohio today denied a woman's request to access the sealed documents of three prior criminal cases involving the man who allegedly killed her husband.

A Supreme Court majority found Butler County Court Judge Robert H. Lyons followed the law when sealing the records of three of Austin Combs’ criminal cases that occurred between 2014 and 2017.

Kristen King, the administrator of the estate of Anthony King, sought the records in pursuit of her wrongful death civil lawsuit against Combs.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine explained that King alleged Judge Lyons and two deputy clerks failed to comply with state law and court rules by restricting access to and sealing the case records.

“Because nothing in the record demonstrates that the trial court failed to comply with the law when it issued the sealing orders, we deny the writ of mandamus,” he wrote.

Justices Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice DeWine’s opinion. Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy also joined the opinion, except for the portion in which the majority found that King failed to prove the U.S. and Ohio constitutions granted her rights to the records.

In an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Jennifer Brunner agreed with the majority that the evidence refutes King’s claim that she is entitled to the record. However, she disagreed with the majority’s other reasons for denying the records. Justice Patrick F. Fischer dissented without a written opinion.

Widow Seeks Records
King and her husband were neighbors of Combs. She alleges Combs shot her husband to death in November 2022. She filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Combs and then in 2023 filed a public records request with Judge Lyons seeking records from three past criminal cases involving Combs.

The first request involved a 2014 misdemeanor domestic violence charge that was dismissed . The second was for a 2015 conviction for misdemeanor theft and assault, and the third was for a 2017 misdemeanor assault conviction.

In sealing the 2014 case, the trial court relied on a former version of R.C. 2953.52, which was in effect at the time of the conviction and governs the sealing of criminal records when a case is dismissed.

The 2015 and 2017 convictions were sealed under the former R.C. 2953.32, which covered sealing of records when there is a criminal conviction. The laws for sealing records have since been revised by state lawmakers.

Judge Lyons and his staff denied the records request. King sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court compelling Judge Lyons to release the records.

The Court denied Judge Lyons’ request to dismiss the case and ordered the case records be filed under seal with the justices for an in camera inspection.

Supreme Court Analyzed Sealing Requirements
Justice DeWine noted that generally the Court does not allow non-parties to a case to challenge a judgment, and King was not part of the three cases in which Combs requested the records be sealed. He explained the Court does allow those not involved in the criminal proceedings to contest a sealing order. The Court has granted requests to unseal documents in cases where the record demonstrated that the trial court failed to follow sealing record laws or rules. The Court has also unsealed records when the Court has found a sealing statute to be unconstitutional.

The opinion explained that King must demonstrate she has a clear legal right to the records and the trial court has a clear legal duty to provide them. The Court also noted there is a “presumption of regularity” to judicial proceedings, and when there is a claim that a public officer has not carried out his duties, the person making the claim must provide evidence to support it.

King argued the sealing orders did not comply with the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio because there is no evidence the trial court followed the requirements of conducting a document-by-document review of the sealed items and did not demonstrate he used the least restrictive means possible to limit public access.

The Court rejected the argument, finding that the trial court did not base its sealing orders on the Superintendence Rules, but rather on the terms of state laws R.C. 2953.32 and R.C. 2953.52. The Superintendence rules themselves make clear that they are subject to applicable provisions of state law relating to the sealing of case documents, the opinion noted.

In reference to state law, King claimed there is no evidence that the trial court set a hearing to consider the sealing request or notify the county prosecutor’s office of its right to comment on the sealing.

The sealed records submitted to the Court for its review contradicted King’s claims, the opinion noted. The sealed records indicate that in each case, a hearing was set, and there is a signed order in each case from an assistant prosecutor approving the sealing request.

King also argued that the federal and state constitutions require an individualized balancing test every time a court record is sealed, weighing the offender's interest in having the records sealed against the government's legitimate need to keep them open.  The Court found no evidence that the trial court failed to perform this balancing, noting that each order included an express finding by the trial court that sealing the case documents was “consistent with the public interest.”

2024-0906. Stat ex rel. King v. Lyons, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3174.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.