State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cnty. Gen. Health Dist.
Decision Date | 19 September 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 2017-0431,2017-0431 |
Citation | 2018 Ohio 3721,114 N.E.3d 152,154 Ohio St.3d 297 |
Parties | The STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, Appellant, v. PIKE COUNTY GENERAL HEALTH DISTRICT et al.; Pike County Medical Examiner and Coroner, Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Graydon, Head & Ritchey, L.L.P., John C. Greiner, Cincinnati, and Darren W. Ford, for appellant.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Sarah E. Pierce, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
{¶ 1} The Cincinnati Enquirer appeals the judgment of the Fourth District Court of Appeals denying its request for a writ of mandamus and requests this court to schedule oral argument. For the reasons set forth herein, we deny the motion for oral argument and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.
{¶ 2} This case arises out of the murders of eight members of the Rhoden and Gilley families in Pike County in April 2016. On May 16, 2016, Kevin Grasha, a Cincinnati Enquirer reporter, contacted the Pike County General Health District, asking to view the preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and findings relating to the homicides of Christopher Rhoden Sr., Christopher Rhoden Jr., Dana Rhoden, Clarence Rhoden, Hanna Rhoden, Hannah Gilley, Kenneth Rhoden, and Gary Rhoden. Grasha made his request pursuant to R.C. 149.43, the Ohio Public Records Act. Grasha made a second request on May 24.
{¶ 3} On May 25, 2016, the Pike County prosecuting attorney, in his role as counsel for the Pike County General Health District and appellee, Pike County's medical examiner and coroner ("coroner"), denied the request to view the records.
{¶ 4} During further exchanges, counsel for the Enquirer invoked R.C. 313.10(D), which provides that upon a request in proper form, journalists must be given access to review, but not copy, the preliminary autopsy reports of a county coroner. The prosecuting attorney again denied the Enquirer access to the records.
{¶ 5} Naming the health district and coroner as respondents, in July, the Enquirer filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus asking the Fourth District Court of Appeals to order the respondents to make the records available pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B) and 313.10. The Enquirer also asked for statutory damages and attorney fees.
{¶ 6} In September 2016, the coroner released heavily redacted versions of the preliminary autopsy reports to the public, calling the reports " ‘confidential law enforcement investigatory records’ under R.C. 313.10(A)(2)(e) and R.C. 149.43" (which states that confidential law-enforcement investigatory records are not public records), see R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(h) and (2). In February 2017, the court of appeals ordered the health district and coroner to submit the unredacted preliminary autopsy reports to it under seal for in camera inspection.
{¶ 7} On March 17, 2017, the court of appeals denied the Enquirer's request for a writ of mandamus. 2017-Ohio-1084, 80 N.E.3d 517. The court of appeals first held that no writ could be issued against the Pike County General Health District, as R.C. 313.10(D) applies only to coroners. Id. at ¶ 36. (The Enquirer has not appealed this aspect of the decision.) After reviewing the unredacted portions of the final autopsy reports, the court of appeals held that they were properly withheld because they constituted confidential law-enforcement investigatory records of the eight decedents and therefore were not subject to the journalist exception in R.C. 313.10(D). Id. at ¶ 5, 51, and 57.
{¶ 8} The Enquirer appealed and filed an unopposed motion for oral argument.
The motion for oral argument
{¶ 9} Oral argument in appeals as of right is discretionary. S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.02(A). When deciding whether to hear oral argument, we consider whether the case involves a matter of great public importance, complex issues of law or fact, a substantial constitutional issue, or a conflict among the courts of appeals. State ex rel. BF Goodrich Co., Specialty Chems. Div. v. Indus. Comm. , 148 Ohio St.3d 212, 2016-Ohio-7988, 69 N.E.3d 728, ¶ 23. This case does involve a matter of great public importance: whether journalists may review, and presumably report on, preliminary autopsy reports in open homicide cases. But the remaining factors are not present: the case presents no constitutional question or division among the intermediate appellate courts; the relevant facts are few and uncontested; and the legal question in the case is a simple question of statutory interpretation. Oral argument would likely offer little new information for the court's consideration.
{¶ 10} We therefore deny the request for oral argument.
Legal analysis
{¶ 11} The Enquirer seeks to review certain documents in the custody of the coroner's office. The records of a county coroner's office are governed by R.C. 313.10. As the court of appeals correctly recognized, this case does not arise under the Ohio Public Records Act. 2017-Ohio-1084, 80 N.E.3d 517 at ¶ 32 ().
{¶ 12} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the Enquirer must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the coroner to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Love v. O'Donnell , 150 Ohio St.3d 378, 2017-Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3. Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel compliance with the Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, and a relator need not demonstrate the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus , 151 Ohio St.3d 425, 2016-Ohio-8394, 89 N.E.3d 598, ¶ 15-16. Although the demand for records in this case arises under R.C. 313.10, not R.C. 149.43, the same rule applies. See State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Examiner's Office , 152 Ohio St.3d 163, 2017-Ohio-8714, 94 N.E.3d 498, ¶ 33 ( ).
{¶ 13} The coroner's-records statute states:
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the records of the coroner who has jurisdiction over the case, including, but not limited to, the detailed descriptions of the observations written during the progress of an autopsy and the conclusions drawn from those observations filed in the office of the coroner * * *, made personally by the coroner or by anyone acting under the coroner's direction or supervision, are public records.
R.C. 313.10(A)(1). R.C. 313.10(B) adds, "All records in the coroner's office that are public records are open to inspection by the public, and any person may receive a copy of any such record or part of it upon demand in writing * * *."
{¶ 14} However, the statute expressly exempts certain categories of documents from the definition of public records.
R.C. 313.10(A)(2). R.C. 313.10(D), referred to above, carves out an exception:
A journalist may submit to the coroner a written request to view preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and findings, suicide notes, or photographs of the decedent made by the coroner or by anyone acting under the coroner's discretion or supervision. * * * If a journalist submits a written request to the coroner to view the records described in this division, the coroner shall grant the journalist's request. The journalist shall not copy the preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and findings, suicide notes, or photographs of the decedent.
The Enquirer contends that the plain language of R.C. 313.10(D) creates an absolute duty on the part of the coroner to permit journalists to inspect preliminary autopsy reports upon proper request.
{¶ 15} The court of appeals disagreed. That court began by interpreting the statutory language to conclude that "records about a deceased individual that are confidential law enforcement investigatory records are not public records." 2017-Ohio-1084, 80 N.E.3d 517 at ¶ 46. The Enquirer does not dispute this proposition, and indeed we confirmed this holding in State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Coroner's Office , 153 Ohio St.3d 63, 2017-Ohio-8988, 101 N.E.3d 396, ¶ 44. The question in the case is not whether the preliminary autopsy reports are public records (they are not), but whether journalists are entitled to see them nonetheless.
{¶ 16} In declining to issue the writ, the court of appeals observed that R.C. 313.10(A)(2), the provision enumerating the coroner’s documents that are not public records, lists six categories of documents:
{¶ 17} The court next noted that the specific language of the journalist privilege, R.C. 313.10(D), allows a journalist to view only "preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and findings, suicide notes, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Sch.
...appellants need not demonstrate the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Gen. Health Dist. , 154 Ohio St.3d 297, 2018-Ohio-3721, 114 N.E.3d 152, ¶ 12.{¶ 8} "We begin with the premise that ‘public records are the people's......
-
State ex rel. Frank v. Ohio State Univ.
...relator need not demonstrate the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law." State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Gen. Health Dist. , 154 Ohio St.3d 297, 2018-Ohio-3721, 114 N.E.3d 152, ¶ 12 ; see also State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus , 151 Ohio St.3d 425, 20......
-
State v. Latapie
... ... - Participate in substance abuse and mental health evaluation ... and follow-up treatment, ... 2953.08(G)(2) ... State v. Prater, 4th Dist ... Adams No. 18CA1069, 2019-Ohio-2745, ¶ 12, ... citing State ex rel. Pratt v. Weygandt, 164 Ohio St ... 463, 132 ... Monroe, 4th ... Dist. Pike No. 99CA632, 2000 WL 807228, *1 (June 14, 2000) ... 1990) 581; Everhart v. Coshocton ... Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 2022-Ohio-629, 186 N.E.3d 232, ... (Emphasis sic.) State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike ... Cnty. Gen. Health Dist, ... ...
-
State ex rel. Crenshaw v. Brandon King Mayor of City of E. Cleveland
... ... Warrensville Hts., 8th ... Dist. Cuyahoga No. 81005, 2002-Ohio-5567, ¶ 14, ... citing State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty ... Gen. Health Dist, 154 ... ...