The Ohio Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from a victim in a felonious assault case, ruling that the order in question was not final and therefore not appealable. The case, State v. Gasser, involves Jacob Mark Gasser, who was indicted for allegedly assaulting T.H. during a December 2025 incident. The court's decision has implications for the treatment of victim's rights under Ohio's Marsy’s Law.
The court ruled on August 3, 2026, in case number 14-26-13, stating that the appeal by T.H., the victim, challenging the trial court's order to review her medical and mental health records was premature. This ruling affects victims' rights in criminal cases, particularly regarding the confidentiality of their medical records.
The dispute arose after Gasser was indicted for allegedly pulling T.H. from his truck during an argument, causing her injuries. Following the indictment, Gasser sought T.H.'s medical records, claiming they were necessary to challenge her credibility as a witness. T.H. contested this subpoena, arguing that her records were privileged and protected under Marsy’s Law, which grants victims certain rights in criminal proceedings.
In response to Gasser's subpoenas, T.H. filed a motion to quash, asserting that her medical records were privileged and that Gasser had not met the necessary legal standards to access them. The trial court conducted a hearing and subsequently ordered an in camera review of the records to determine their relevance, which led T.H. to appeal the decision.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge William R. Zimmerman, explained that the order for an in camera review does not constitute a final, appealable order. The court stated, "An in camera inspection is not an order that requires the disclosure of materials to another party. Therefore, orders for an in camera inspection do not constitute final orders." This means that the court cannot yet address the merits of T.H.'s arguments regarding her records.
The court emphasized that while victims have rights under Marsy’s Law, those rights must be balanced against the rights of defendants in criminal cases. The ruling clarified that an in camera review is a necessary step for the court to weigh the competing interests of the victim's privacy and the defendant's right to a fair trial.
The court's decision highlights the complexities involved in cases where a victim's medical records are subpoenaed. It underscores the importance of following proper legal procedures to ensure that victims' rights are protected while also allowing defendants to prepare their defense adequately.
Looking ahead, the dismissal of T.H.'s appeal means that the trial court will continue with its in camera review of the records. If the court ultimately determines that certain records are relevant and must be disclosed, T.H. could still challenge that decision later in the process. However, for now, the appellate court has indicated that it will not intervene until a final order is issued by the trial court.
This case serves as a reminder of the ongoing discussions surrounding victim rights in Ohio, especially in light of Marsy’s Law. It also illustrates the legal challenges that can arise when balancing the rights of victims and defendants in criminal proceedings.
As the legal process continues, it remains to be seen how the trial court will handle the in camera review and what implications this will have for both T.H. and Gasser as the case progresses.