State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch

465 N.E.2d 458, 12 Ohio St. 3d 100, 10 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2079, 12 Ohio B. 87, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1177
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 11, 1984
DocketNo. 83-597
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 465 N.E.2d 458 (State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch, 465 N.E.2d 458, 12 Ohio St. 3d 100, 10 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2079, 12 Ohio B. 87, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1177 (Ohio 1984).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

R.C. 149.43(B) requires the disclosure of all public records. Respondent contends that autopsy reports on homicide victims are exempt from disclosure as confidential law enforcement records because their release would disclose “[s]pecific confidential investigatory techniques or procedures or specific investigatory work product.” R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c).

In support of this contention respondent states that the autopsy reports contain information relating to the type of wounds, how they were inflicted, etc., which aid law enforcement personnel in conducting their investigation. Respondent also states that the contents of the report are used to test the credibility of witnesses by comparing a witness’ proposed testimony with details in the autopsy report.

We adhere to our policy that exceptions to the disclosure requirements of R.C. 149.43(B) be strictly construed against the custodian of records. See State, ex rel. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., v. Krouse (1977), 51 Ohio St. 2d 1 [5 O.O.3d 1]. However, we agree with respondent that the autopsy reports herein are exempt from disclosure as specific investigatory work product under R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c). The autopsy is, in itself, an investigation. The fact that it is required because a homicide occurred distinguishes the autopsy [101]*101report from the “routine factual reports” we held subject to disclosure in State, ex rel. Beacon Journal, v. Univ. of Akron (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 392 [18 O.O.3d 534]. Moreover, we recognize that the confidentiality of the contents of an autopsy report is essential to its effective use in further investigation by law enforcement personnel.

We are unpersuaded by relator’s argument that the terms of R.C. 313.09 and 313.10 require disclosure. R.C. 313.10 provides that “* * * records of the coroner * * * are public records * * However, in describing the records of the coroner, R.C. 313.09 in part provides:

“The coroner shall keep a complete record of and shall fill in the cause of death on the death certificate, in all cases coming under his jurisdiction. * * * Such records shall be properly indexed, and shall state the name, if known, of every deceased person as described in section 313.12 of the Revised Code, the place where the body was found, date of death, cause of death, and all other available information. The report of the coroner and the detailed findings of the autopsy shall be attached to the report of each case. * * *”

This statute treats the autopsy report as an item separate from the other information the coroner is required to keep as a public record. Thus, we cannot conclude, as relator urges, that it requires disclosure of the autopsy report in the same manner as the other information specified.

Accordingly, the writ is denied.

Writ denied.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J. P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Gen. Health Dist.
2017 Ohio 1084 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)
State ex rel. Findlay Publishing Co. v. Schroeder
1996 Ohio 361 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)
State ex rel. Hamblin v. City of Brooklyn
616 N.E.2d 883 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1993)
State ex rel. Hamblin v. Brooklyn
1993 Ohio 185 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1993)
State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Watkins
609 N.E.2d 551 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1993)
State ex rel. Johnson v. City of Cleveland
603 N.E.2d 1011 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)
State ex rel. Williams v. City of Cleveland
597 N.E.2d 147 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)
State ex rel. Williams v. Cleveland
1992 Ohio 115 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992)
State Ex Rel. Jenkins v. City of Cleveland
613 N.E.2d 652 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1992)
State Ex Rel. Collins v. Corbin
597 N.E.2d 544 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1992)
State Ex Rel. National Broadcasting Co. v. City of Cleveland
611 N.E.2d 838 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1992)
State v. Moore
598 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1991)
State, Ex Rel. Martinelli v. Corrigan
593 N.E.2d 364 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1991)
State ex rel. National Broadcasting Co. v. City of Cleveland
566 N.E.2d 146 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1991)
State Ex Rel. Ware v. City of Cleveland
562 N.E.2d 946 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1989)
Woodman v. City of Lakewood
541 N.E.2d 1084 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
465 N.E.2d 458, 12 Ohio St. 3d 100, 10 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2079, 12 Ohio B. 87, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-dayton-newspapers-inc-v-rauch-ohio-1984.