State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Coroner's Office (Slip Opinion)
101 N.E.3d 396
| Ohio | 2017Background
- In April 2016 eight members of the Rhoden and Gilley families were murdered in Pike County; final autopsy reports were completed and delivered to the Pike County Coroner's Office (PCCO).
- The Cincinnati Enquirer and the Columbus Dispatch requested the final autopsy reports under Ohio public-records law; PCCO denied full disclosure and later released redacted versions while filing unredacted reports under seal with the Supreme Court for in camera review.
- The newspapers filed original actions seeking writs of mandamus to compel production of the unredacted reports and sought statutory damages and attorney fees for the alleged delay.
- The court conducted in camera review of the unredacted reports and received affidavits from the coroner and BCI describing the investigative value of specific details (trajectories, tattoos/scars, toxicology, body placement, etc.).
- The majority denied the writs, held that final autopsy reports may be “records of a deceased individual” and that specific redactions were permissible under the confidential law-enforcement investigatory records (CLEIR) exception while the investigation is ongoing; the court also denied requests for oral argument, access to in camera review, statutory damages, and attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an autopsy report is a “record of a deceased individual” under R.C. 313.10(A)(2)(e) | Autopsy reports are "records of the coroner" and thus public records not covered by the "records of a deceased individual" phrasing | The phrase includes records about the decedent (not only pre‑death documents in the decedent's possession); autopsy reports are records of a deceased individual | Held: autopsy reports are "records of a deceased individual" within §313.10(A)(2)(e) |
| Whether redacted portions are protected as CLEIR (specifically "specific investigatory work product") | Final autopsy reports can never qualify as CLEIR; redacted material is not the type of work product protected | Coroner and BCI affidavits: detailed autopsy facts (bullet tracks, trajectories, toxicology, identifying marks, body placement) are specific investigatory work product and would impair the investigation if disclosed | Held: redacted information is CLEIR (specific investigatory work product) and may be withheld while the criminal investigation is ongoing |
| Whether requesters have a due‑process right to participate in the court's in camera review | Media argued they must participate in in camera inspection to protect due process and challenge redactions | Court relied on precedent rejecting a right to participate; relators can challenge based on unsealed evidence | Held: denied — relators have no right to join the in camera inspection; challenge may proceed on record submitted under seal |
| Entitlement to statutory damages or attorney fees for delay in producing redacted reports | Newspapers sought statutory damages and fees for alleged untimely production | PCCO said two months was reasonable given scope and care required for redactions; earlier fee provisions did not apply at the time | Held: denied — two months was reasonable here; no attorney fees or statutory damages awarded (applicable fee provisions not in effect then) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch, 12 Ohio St.3d 100, 465 N.E.2d 458 (1984) (held autopsy reports could be withheld as investigatory work product)
- Steckman v. Jackson, 70 Ohio St.3d 420, 639 N.E.2d 83 (1994) (established two‑part CLEIR/work‑product framework and bright‑line approach)
- State v. Craig, 110 Ohio St.3d 306, 853 N.E.2d 621 (2006) (autopsy reports admissible as nontestimonial business records)
- State v. Maxwell, 139 Ohio St.3d 12, 9 N.E.3d 930 (2014) (autopsy reports nontestimonial when not prepared primarily to accuse a target)
- State ex rel. Polovischak v. Mayfield, 50 Ohio St.3d 51, 552 N.E.2d 635 (1990) (CLEIR protection focuses on the nature of records, not only on holder)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Dept. of Pub. Safety, 148 Ohio St.3d 433, 71 N.E.3d 258 (2016) (investigative value may justify temporary withholding where disclosure would impair investigation)