2018 Ohio 3721
Ohio2018Background
- In May 2016 a Cincinnati Enquirer reporter requested to view preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and findings relating to eight homicide victims from the Pike County coroner under R.C. 313.10 and the Ohio Public Records Act.
- The Pike County prosecuting attorney, representing the coroner, denied access; the coroner later released heavily redacted preliminary autopsy reports and claimed exemptions for confidential law‑enforcement investigatory records.
- The Enquirer sued in mandamus in the Fourth District Court of Appeals seeking an order compelling the coroner to allow inspection under R.C. 313.10(D). The court ordered the unredacted reports submitted in camera and ultimately denied the writ, holding that the journalist privilege did not override the confidential law‑enforcement investigatory exemption.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted review; the Enquirer sought oral argument (denied) and argued R.C. 313.10(D) creates an unqualified duty for coroners to allow journalists to view preliminary autopsy materials on proper request.
- The Supreme Court held R.C. 313.10(D)’s plain language requires coroners to permit journalists to inspect preliminary autopsy and investigative notes, suicide notes, and decedent photographs upon written request, even if those materials might otherwise be characterized as confidential law‑enforcement investigatory records, although copying is prohibited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 313.10(D) requires a coroner to permit a journalist to view preliminary autopsy/investigative notes even when those materials contain confidential law‑enforcement investigatory content | R.C. 313.10(D) unambiguously mandates that coroners "shall" grant journalists' written requests to view the specified materials; denial was improper | The coroner argued the materials are nonpublic under R.C. 313.10(A)(2) and R.C. 149.43, so the journalist privilege cannot override the confidential law‑enforcement investigatory exemption | Held for Enquirer: statutory text is unambiguous; coroners must allow inspection under R.C. 313.10(D), copying may be prohibited |
| Whether the court of appeals properly applied expressio unius est exclusio alterius to limit R.C. 313.10(D) by reference to other nonpublic categories in R.C. 313.10(A)(2) | Relying on plain meaning of "shall grant," the Enquirer argued canons should not defeat an unambiguous statute | Coroner asserted the journalist provision should be read in context and limited by listing of nonpublic records | Held for Enquirer: where statutory language is clear, canons like expressio unius cannot override plain text |
| Whether materials are governed also by R.C. 149.43 and thus exempt despite R.C. 313.10(D) | Enquirer: R.C. 313.10(D) specifically provides access to journalists and operates independently of R.C. 149.43 exemptions | Coroner: R.C. 149.43 confidential investigatory record exemptions control and prevent disclosure | Held for Enquirer: reading R.C. 149.43 to nullify 313.10(D) would render the journalist privilege a nullity; statute affords limited access despite other exemptions |
| Proper remedy — mandamus availability | Enquirer: mandamus is appropriate to compel statutory duty under R.C. 313.10(D) | Coroner: (did not dispute mandamus remedy) | Held for Enquirer: mandamus granted to compel inspection; remedy appropriate without showing alternative remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. BF Goodrich Co., Specialty Chems. Div. v. Indus. Comm., 69 N.E.3d 728 (Ohio 2016) (factors for granting oral argument and considerations of public‑importance review)
- State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner’s Office, 94 N.E.3d 498 (Ohio 2017) (statutory interpretation rule: courts should not apply construction canons when statute is unambiguous)
- State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 81 N.E.3d 1250 (Ohio 2017) (mandamus standard for compelling public‑records compliance)
- State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus, 89 N.E.3d 598 (Ohio 2016) (mandamus appropriate remedy to enforce records statutes)
- State ex rel. Wilson v. Preston, 181 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio 1962) (expressio unius is an interpretive aid applicable only when statute is ambiguous)