## Facts

- CECOS International, Inc. operated a hazardous-waste landfill in Clermont County, Ohio.
- A grand jury indicted CECOS and others on March 31, 1985, based on alleged illegal hazardous-waste discharges into a tributary of Pleasant Run Creek during 1984.
- The indictment included 24 counts alleging violations of Ohio environmental statutes and regulations.
- Before trial, CECOS sought discovery of grand jury testimony by all current and former CECOS officers and employees who testified.
- CECOS argued the testimony was discoverable as the corporation’s own “statements” under Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(a), and alternatively that disclosure was warranted under Crim.R. 6(E) based on particularized need (including potential impeachment at trial).
- The trial court ordered disclosure on both grounds and stayed proceedings pending appeal.
- The court of appeals affirmed, reading Crim.R. 16 broadly to include grand jury testimony of all employees whose conduct within the scope of employment could be imputed to the corporation.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted review.

## Issues

1. Under R.C. 2901.23(A)(4), whose conduct within a corporation can be attributed to the corporation for purposes of criminal liability?
2. Under Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(a), does a corporate defendant’s discoverable “statements” include grand jury testimony of all current and former employees, or only certain employees?
3. Under Crim.R. 6(E), did CECOS establish a particularized need sufficient to justify disclosure of employee and ex-employee grand jury testimony?

## Decision

- The court held that, under R.C. 2901.23(A)(4), a corporation may be convicted only when the relevant criminal act or omission was approved, recommended, or implemented by high managerial personnel with actual or implied authority to do so.
- The court held that grand jury testimony is discoverable as a corporate defendant’s “statement” under Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(a) only when it concerns an alleged act or omission performed on behalf of the corporation and within the scope of employment, and the declarant had sufficient authority to impute criminal culpability to the corporation.
- The court rejected the rule that all employees’ grand jury testimony is automatically discoverable by a corporate defendant.
- The court reaffirmed that grand jury secrecy is the default and that disclosure under Crim.R. 6(E) depends on a showing of particularized need within the trial court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- An organization’s criminal liability under R.C. 2901.23(A)(4) requires approval, recommendation, or implementation of the criminal act or omission by high managerial personnel with actual or implied authority; “high managerial personnel” are those who make basic corporate policies.
- For Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(a), a corporate employee’s grand jury testimony qualifies as a discoverable “statement” of the corporate defendant only if it relates to an alleged corporate act or omission within the employee’s scope of employment and the employee’s authority is sufficient to attribute criminal culpability to the corporation.
- Disclosure of grand jury matters under Crim.R. 6(E) remains exceptional; it requires a particularized need and is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court tied corporate criminal attribution and corporate discovery rights to the authority of high managerial personnel, limiting discovery of employee grand jury testimony to statements connected to imputable corporate conduct rather than permitting disclosure of testimony from all current and former employees.


State v. CECOS Int’l, Inc., 38 Ohio St. 3d 120 (Ohio 1988)