State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Gen. Health Dist.
2017 Ohio 1084
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Eight members of the Rhoden/Gilley family were murdered in Pike County; the county coroner (Dr. Kessler) ordered autopsies to assist a criminal investigation and contracted with Hamilton County for pathology services.
- The Cincinnati Enquirer requested to view preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and findings for those victims; the Pike County Prosecuting Attorney and coroner denied the request.
- The Enquirer sought a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals to compel inspection under the journalist exception in R.C. 313.10(D); the Enquirer conceded the claim is governed by R.C. 313.10 (not R.C. 149.43).
- The coroner produced redacted final reports publicly and submitted unredacted preliminary reports to the court under seal for in camera review.
- The court reviewed the sealed records and evidence from the coroner and BCI investigators and evaluated whether redacted material constituted confidential law enforcement investigatory records not subject to the journalist exception.
- The court denied mandamus as to the health district (no statutory duty) and denied relief against the coroner, finding withheld portions were confidential investigatory records under R.C. 313.10(A)(2)(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing statute for coroner records request | Enquirer argued journalist exception in R.C. 313.10(D) governs access (not R.C. 149.43) | Coroner relied on historical precedent under R.C. 149.43 exemptions | Court: R.C. 313.10 governs (preliminary autopsy reports are nonpublic but subject to limited journalist exception) |
| Is health district obligated to provide inspection under R.C. 313.10(D)? | Enquirer named health district as respondent and sought mandamus | Respondents: R.C. 313.10(D) imposes duty only on coroners, not health districts | Court: Denied mandamus as to health district — no duty under 313.10(D) |
| Does journalist exception in R.C. 313.10(D) override confidential law enforcement investigatory records? | Enquirer: journalist exception permits viewing preliminary autopsy records regardless of whether they contain investigatory material | Respondents: R.C. 313.10(A)(2)(e) excludes records of a deceased that are confidential law enforcement investigatory records from disclosure and 313.10(D) does not reach them | Court: Held 313.10(D) does not apply to records that are confidential law enforcement investigatory records under 313.10(A)(2)(e); such portions may be withheld |
| Were the redactions in the submitted preliminary autopsy reports properly withheld as confidential investigatory work product? | Enquirer: requested full inspection; asserted public interest | Coroner/BCI: affidavits explained redactions contain specific investigatory details (wound locations, trajectories, forensic detail) that would impede an active homicide investigation | Court: After in camera review, held redacted portions are confidential law enforcement investigatory records (specific work product) and may be withheld; mandamus denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch, 12 Ohio St.3d 100 (1984) (autopsy contents treated as investigatory work product and exempt from disclosure)
- State ex rel. Williams v. Cleveland, 64 Ohio St.3d 544 (1992) (reaffirming that autopsy reports of homicide victims are exempt as investigatory records)
- Albrecht v. Treon, 118 Ohio St.3d 348 (2008) (statutory authority for coroners to perform autopsies and scope of autopsy definition)
- State ex rel. Lanham v. DeWine, 135 Ohio St.3d 191 (2013) (court may require in camera review of records before determining disclosure exceptions)