Title: State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike County General Health District

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Gen. Health Dist.., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-3721.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-3721 
THE STATE EX REL. CINCINNATI ENQUIRER, APPELLANT, v. PIKE COUNTY 
GENERAL HEALTH DISTRICT ET AL.; PIKE COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER AND 
CORONER, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Gen. Health 
Dist.., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-3721.] 
Mandamus—Coroner’s records-statute, R.C. 313.10—The coroner shall grant a 
journalist’s proper request to review preliminary autopsy and investigative 
notes made by the coroner—Writ granted. 
(No. 2017-0431—Submitted February 27, 2018—Decided September 19, 2018.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Pike County, No. 16CA873,  
2017-Ohio-1084. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
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. 
Background 
{¶ 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 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
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.  4th Dist. Pike No. 16CA873, 2017-Ohio-1084.  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. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
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 at ¶ 32 (“we conclude that the 
Enquirer’s claim is governed by R.C. 313.10 and not R.C. 149.43”). 
{¶ 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 (in a case involving records of a coroner, the 
parties did not dispute that the requesting party had no adequate remedy in the 
ordinary course of the law). 
{¶ 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 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
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. 
 
Except as provided in division (D) or (E) of this section, the 
following records in a coroner’s office are not public records: 
(a) 
Preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and 
findings made by the coroner or by anyone acting under the 
coroner’s direction or supervision; 
* * * 
(e) 
Records of a deceased individual that are 
confidential law enforcement investigatory records as defined in 
section 149.43 of the Revised Code. 
 
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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
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 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 documents that are not public 
records, lists six categories of documents: 
 
(a) 
Preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and 
findings made by the coroner or by anyone acting under the 
coroner’s direction or supervision; 
(b) 
Photographs of a decedent made by the coroner or by 
anyone acting under the coroner’s direction or supervision; 
(c) 
Suicide notes; 
(d) 
Medical and psychiatric records provided to the 
coroner, a deputy coroner, or a representative of the coroner 
or a deputy coroner * * *; 
January Term, 2018 
 
7
(e) 
Records of a deceased individual that are 
confidential law enforcement investigatory records as defined in 
section 149.43 of the Revised Code. 
(f) 
Laboratory reports generated from the analysis of 
physical evidence by the coroner’s laboratory that is discoverable 
under Criminal Rule 16. 
 
{¶ 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 photographs of the decedent 
made by the coroner or by anyone acting under the coroner’s discretion or 
supervision.”  Applying the general rule of statutory construction expressio unius 
est exclusio alterius (“ ‘the expression of one or more items of a class implies that 
those not identified are to be excluded,’ ” quoting State v. Droste, 83 Ohio St.3d 
36, 39, 697 N.E.2d 620 (1998) ), the court concluded that R.C. 313.10(D) does not 
authorize the inspection of confidential law enforcement records “insofar as they 
are included in preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and findings made by 
the coroner.”  2017-Ohio-1084 at ¶ 47-48. 
{¶ 18} The court bolstered its conclusion by examining two other 
provisions of the coroner’s statute that permit designated persons to obtain 
nonpublic coroner records.  The coroner is required, upon request, to provide “a 
copy of the full and complete records of the coroner” to the next of kin of the 
decedent, R.C. 313.10(C)(1), and an insurer, R.C. 313.10(E)(1) and (2).  Had the 
General Assembly intended journalists to have unfettered access to nonpublic 
records of the coroner, the court of appeals concluded, it would have used the same 
broad language in the journalist provision, but it did not.  Id. at ¶ 49. 
{¶ 19} The court of appeals examined the specific redacted materials sought 
by the Enquirer and found them to contain confidential law-enforcement records.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
It then interpreted R.C. 149.43(A)(2)(c) (confidential law-enforcement records that 
will likely lead to the disclosure of specific investigatory work product are not 
public records) as circumscribing R.C. 313.10(D).  2017-Ohio-1084 at ¶ 52.  
Therefore, it declined to issue the writ of mandamus.  Id. at ¶ 57-58. 
{¶ 20} In our judgment, the court of appeals’ analysis is flawed.  When 
construing the language of a statute, a court begins by examining the intent of the 
General Assembly.  State ex rel. Repeal the Lorain Cty. Permissive Sales Tax 
Commt. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio St.3d 247, 2017-Ohio-7648, 87 
N.E.3d 1234, ¶ 14.  The intent of the General Assembly “is primarily determined 
from the language of the statute itself.”  Stewart v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
34 Ohio St.2d 129, 130, 296 N.E.2d 676 (1973).  And when a statute is 
unambiguous, the court must apply it as written.  State ex rel. Ohio Presbyterian 
Retirement Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 151 Ohio St.3d 92, 2017-Ohio-7577, 86 
N.E.3d 294, ¶ 19. 
{¶ 21} The language of R.C. 313.10(D) is clear: if a journalist submits a 
proper request to review preliminary autopsy and investigative notes and findings, 
suicide notes, or photographs of the decedent made by the coroner, the coroner 
“shall” grant the request.  The language of R.C. 313.10(D) does not condition that 
right of access in any way, and the right of access certainly does not depend on 
whether the records in question are confidential law-enforcement records.  Indeed, 
the statute accounts for the possibility that the materials might be sensitive by 
denying journalists the ability to copy the materials. 
{¶ 22} The court of appeals disregarded the plain language of the statute 
and decided instead to rely upon a canon of statutory construction.  However, when 
the words of a statute are unambiguous, a court has “no cause to apply the rules of 
statutory construction.”  Clay, 152 Ohio St.3d 163, 2017-Ohio-8714, 94 N.E.3d 
498, at ¶ 16-17 (declining to interpret an unambiguous statute by applying the in 
pari materia rule of statutory construction); accord Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of 
January Term, 2018 
 
9
Southwest Ohio, Inc., 142 Ohio St.2d 236, 2014-Ohio-5511, 29 N.E.3d 903, ¶ 22-
23.  This court has long held that the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius 
“is an aid in interpreting ambiguous statutes” and should not be applied to defeat 
legislative intent when there is no ambiguity.  (Emphasis added.)  State ex rel. 
Wilson v. Preston, 173 Ohio St. 203, 209, 181 N.E.2d 31 (1962). 
{¶ 23} Alternatively, the coroner contends that the documents at issue are 
subject to the terms of both the coroner’s statute and the Public Records Act and 
are exempt from disclosure by the latter.  However, we rejected this precise 
argument in Clay.  Id. at ¶ 19-20.  Moreover, the coroner’s argument would swallow 
the journalist privilege altogether: the function of R.C. 313.10(D) is to give 
journalists limited access to records that are not public records.  If a journalist could 
review only autopsy reports that are public records, then he would have no greater 
access than the general public, and R.C. 313.10(D) would be a dead letter. 
{¶ 24} Based on the plain language of R.C. 313.10(D), we reverse the 
judgment of the court of appeals and grant a writ of mandamus. 
Judgment reversed 
and writ granted. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, FISCHER, and DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only. 
FRENCH and DEWINE, JJ., not participating. 
_________________ 
Graydon Head & Ritchey, L.L.P., John C. Greiner, and Darren W. Ford, for 
appellant. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Sarah E. Pierce, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
_________________