TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

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

The State, ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc., d.b.a. The Dayton Daily News v. Rauch, Coroner

State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. Rauch, 465 N.E.2d 458 (Ohio 1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Ohio Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 11, 1984
Docket
No. 83-597
Judges
Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
Citations
465 N.E.2d 45812 Ohio St. 3d 10012 Ohio B. 871984 Ohio LEXIS 117710 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2079

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

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 report 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 21 cases

View all citing references →
1988: 21989: 11991: 31992: 61993: 31996: 12000: 22017: 22019: 119882026peak 1992 · 6

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Coroner's Office (Slip Opinion)2017 Ohio 8988, 101 N.E.3d 396 · Dissent
  2. State ex rel. Williams v. City of Cleveland597 N.E.2d 147 (Ohio 1992)
  3. State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Gen. Health Dist.2017 Ohio 1084
  4. State ex rel. Collins v. Corbin597 N.E.2d 544 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
  5. State ex rel. Jenkins v. City of Cleveland613 N.E.2d 652 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
  6. State ex rel. Ware v. City of Cleveland562 N.E.2d 946 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publ'g Co. v. Univ. of Akron, 415 N.E.2d 310 (Ohio 1980) 39
State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publ'g Co. v. Krouse, 364 N.E.2d 854 (Ohio 1977) 9

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list