and disseminated to the defendant by the trial court pursuant to R.C. 2951.03(B)(3). We agree that a victim impact statement would be redacted from a PSI under R.C. 2951.03(B)(1)(c) or (d). However, R.C. 2951.03(B) clearly provides that when information is not disclosed, a trial court is only required to make a summary of the factual information that is not disclosed. See State v. Roberson (2001), 141 Ohio App.3d 626, 752 N.E.2d 984. R.C. 2951.03 does not require a trial court to summarize and disseminate information that was not disclosed pursuant to R.C. 2951.03(B)(1). Id. {¶ 16} Upon reviewing R.C. 2951.03(B), we do not believe that a victim impact statement redacted from the report under R.C. 2951.03(B)(1) constitutes the “factual information” contemplated by the statute. Id. (<HOLDING>). It follows that whether or not a victim
holding that the injunction did not constitute a claim holding that the only statements not disclosed were the probation officers recommendations which did not constitute factual information as contemplated by the statute holding that information disclosed to jurors as a result of their presence at trial ie that the defendant did not testify did not constitute extraneous prejudicial information within the meaning of the rule 606b exception holding that promises of a future business relationship not contemplated by the sales contract would not be barred by the doctrine recognizing that information disclosed in private is not a public disclosure under the fca