From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Oney v. Allen

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 12, 1988
39 Ohio St. 3d 103 (Ohio 1988)

Summary

In Oney v. Allen (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 103, 529 N.E.2d 471, paragraph two of the syllabus, we held that a publication is privileged pursuant to R.C. 2317.05 as long as it is a substantially accurate report of the official record.

Summary of this case from Young v. the Morning Journal

Opinion

No. 87-1643

Submitted June 7, 1988 —

Decided October 12, 1988.

Defamation — Newspapers — Report of drug indictment — Privilege of "fair and impartial" reporting, explained — R.C. 2317.05 — "Substantially accurate," construed.

O.Jur 3d Defamation § 80.

1. The privilege given by R.C. 2317.05 to publish a fair and impartial report of the return of any indictment does not require a verbatim reproduction of the official record.

2. In order to show that a publication falls within the privilege of R.C. 2317.05, the defendant must demonstrate that the publication is a substantially accurate report of the official record.

3. A publication is substantially accurate if it conveys the essence of the official record to the ordinary reader, without misleading the reader by the inclusion of inaccurate extra-record information or the exclusion of relevant information in the record. ( Embers Supper Club, Inc. v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 9 Ohio St.3d 22, 9 OBR 115, 457 N.E.2d 1164, certiorari denied [1984], 467 U.S. 1226, explained.)

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. CA-2461.

In January 1985, an undercover drug investigation conducted by the Richland County Prosecutor's office resulted in a number of grand jury indictments, including an indictment of "MIKE ONEY (AKA) STONEY" for "TRAFFICKING." Stephen Hudak, reporter for the News Journal in Mansfield, received a list of the indictees from John W. Allen, the Richland County Prosecutor. The list included the name "Oney, Mike (aka) Stoney" and gave his address ("RR 1 Noble Rd., Shiloh, Ohio"), his date of birth (May 16, 1952), and his social security number.

Michael and Deborah Oney, plaintiffs-appellees, live on Noble Road in Shiloh. Michael Oney was born May 16, 1952, and his social security number matches that on the list given to Hudak. He was the only person by that name listed in the phone book for the area in which the drug investigation occurred.

On January 24, Hudak checked the names on the list given to him by Allen against the names on the criminal court docket of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County. Earlier that day, the court had ordered that the indictments be sealed, kept secret, and not docketed by name until the defendants were in custody. However, for an unexplained reason, the court order was not implemented and the docket book reflected that "Mike Oney aka Stoney" had been "indicted for trafficking."

The following day the News Journal published an article written by Hudak about the "drug bust." It listed twenty-seven people who had been indicted, including "Mike Oney, 32, of Noble Road, Shiloh, trafficking."

That same day Michael Oney received a call at work from the sheriff's department. After identifying himself, Oney was told he had been indicted and should go to the police department. Oney went to the sheriff's office where, after identifying himself, he was told he was under arrest. Oney confirmed that his address and social security number were the same as those possessed by the officers. An officer began reading indictments to Oney but someone intervened, saying this was not the person they were after. Oney had been the victim of a mistake in identity.

Upon learning of the mistake, the News Journal published a retraction. Prosecutor Allen wrote a letter to Oney apologizing for the mistake and explaining:

"* * * There are 3 persons living in Richland County, (1) Mike Oney — `you'; (2) Stoney Oney; (3) Mike Sloan, nicknamed `Stoney', the undercover agent made a drug buy from an individual identified as `Stoney'. The agent, quite obviously, is unable to require the proof of identification from the defendant. In this type of operation if there is any difficulty in an identification, the undercover agent will actually do that at the time of the arrest. We normally would come to your house, you would indicate to the officer you had never been known as `Stoney' and a further check would have been done. Your name would not have appeared in the newspaper.

"We eventually did arrest and positively identify Mike Sloan aka as [ sic] `Stoney'. The News Journal got the list of defendants early with the understanding that they [ sic] are not to print those names until the defendant is in custody. The error would have been corrected prior to any names being printed. * * *"

Allen claims he gave Hudak the list off the record and told him that a court order protected the indictments from becoming public until the defendants were in custody. Hudak claims he was given the list with the understanding that he would not publish the names until the sheriff's department began to arrest those indicted. He claims to have had no knowledge of a court order.

On August 19, 1985, Oney filed a defamation action against defendants-appellants, Hudak and the News Journal, for their article identifying him as an indictee in the drug bust.

Oney also filed other claims including ones against Allen, the Richland County Sheriff's Department, and Sheriff Richard Petty and Captain Larry Faith of the Richland County Sheriff's Department. These claims are not before us.

Appellants filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion, finding the story was a true report of a matter appearing in the public record. The court of appeals reversed.

This cause is before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Sindell, Rubenstein, Einbund, Pavlik, Novak Celebrezze, William J. Novak and Laurie F. Starr, for appellee.

Wickens, Herzer Panza, Richard D. Panza, Richard A. Naegele and Thomas A. Downie, for appellants.


In this case we must decide whether the publication by the News Journal of the indictment of Michael Oney was privileged pursuant to R.C. 2317.05. For the reasons which follow, we find that it was.

There is no evidence indicating that the report of the indictment was published maliciously, and the Oneys do not so contend. It is undisputed that the News Journal published a correction shortly after learning of the misidentification. The only issue before us is whether the publication was a "fair and impartial" report of the indictment pursuant to R.C. 2317.05.

R.C. 2317.05 provides in part:

"The publication of a fair and impartial report of the return of any indictment * * * is privileged, unless it is proved that the same was published maliciously, or that defendant has refused or neglected to publish in the same manner in which the publication complained of appeared, a reasonable written explanation or contradiction thereof by the plaintiff * * *."

A publication is an "impartial" report when it is unbiased, not giving the impression the writer agrees or disagrees with the assertions in the official record or proceeding. There is no allegation that the article in this case was other than impartial. The article simply listed the names, ages, addresses and charges against those indicted. It did not indicate whether the author believed the charges in the record to be accurate.

However, the Oneys claim that the addition of information not in the indictment, i.e., the age and address of Mike Oney ("* * * 32, of Noble Road, Shiloh * * *"), and the failure to include information in the indictment ("aka Stoney") renders the fair report privilege inapplicable to Hudak and the News Journal. The court of appeals agreed.

We find that the privilege given under R.C. 2317.05 to publish a fair and impartial report of the return of any indictment does not require a verbatim reproduction of the official record.

This is in accord with what appears to be the unanimous view of the case law. See Elder, The Fair Report Privilege (1988) 193, Section 1.21. Courts have accorded protection to variances from the verbatim record "as long as the `gravamen,' `gist' or `sting' or `substance' of the underlying proceeding or report * * * is substantially correct." (Footnotes omitted). Id.

In order to show that a publication falls within the privilege of R.C. 2317.05, the defendant must demonstrate that the publication is a substantially accurate report of the official record. See Torski v. Mansfield Journal Co. (1956), 100 Ohio App. 538, 545, 60 O.O. 413, 416, 137 N.E.2d 679, 683. See, also, Wilson v. Birmingham Post Co. (Ala. 1986), 482 So.2d 1209 (interpreting a statute virtually identical in relevant part to R.C. 2317.05); Crittendon v. Combined Communications Corp. (Okla. 1985), 714 P.2d 1026. A publication is substantially accurate if it conveys the essence of the official record to the ordinary reader, without misleading the reader by the inclusion of inaccurate extra-record information or the exclusion of relevant information in the record. See 3 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965) 300-301, Section 611, Comment f; Mark v. Seattle Times (1981), 96 Wn.2d 473, 493, 635 P.2d 1081, 1092.

Unfortunately, our decision in Embers Supper Club, Inc. v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 22, 9 OBR 115, 457 N.E.2d 1164, certiorari denied (1984), 467 U.S. 1226, has been interpreted as holding that a verbatim reproduction of the official record is required under R.C. 2317.05. In Embers we found that information included in a news broadcast which was not part of the official records removed the broadcast from the protection of R.C. 2317.05. The debate between the majority and dissenting justices in Embers was not over whether the additional words had been included, but whether the additional words rendered the broadcasts not substantially accurate. Id. at 27, 9 OBR at 119, 457 N.E.2d at 1168 (Holmes, J., dissenting). Nevertheless, to the extent that the language used in Embers, supra, can be read in contradiction to the rules we announce today, such interpretation of Embers is disapproved.

Though the issue is not before us, the standard of proof established for private-figure defamation cases in Embers was modified in Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Pub. Co. (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 176, 180, 512 N.E.2d 979, 984.

In the present case, the Oneys claim that someone named "Stoney" was indicted, not appellee Mike Oney, and, therefore, the newspaper article was inaccurate and misleading. We disagree.

The indictment stated that "Mike Oney (aka) Stoney" was indicted for trafficking. Apparently there is no perso by the name of Mike Oney with an alias of Stoney. However, the facts and circumstances which provide the context to the docketed indictment make clear that the appellee, Mike Oney, was indicted.

There was only one Mike Oney in the area. The prosecutor's office, which was in charge of the undercover investigations, specifically identified appellee Mike Oney, by name, address, age, and social security number, as the subject of the indictment. The sheriff's office called appellee at work and told him to come in. Oney went to the sheriff's office and identified himself by name, whereupon he was told he was under arrest. He then confirmed that his address and social security number were the same as those possessed by the officers. Under these facts we reject the argument that appellee was never indicted for trafficking.

It is true that Mike Oney was mistakenly indicted for drug trafficking, but, as the Oneys concede in their brief, the responsibility for the misidentification was substantially that of the Richland County Sheriff's Department.

In light of the fact that appellee Mike Oney was in fact indicted, it can hardly be claimed that the article's addition of Oney's age and address was inaccurate or misleading. Nor did the publisher mislead by its failure to include "aka Stoney" in its report, especially since Michael Oney claims that he was not known as "Stoney." The pivotal fact is that Michael Oney, the appellee in the present case, was indicted and that is what the publisher reported.

The Oneys also contend that the court order mandating the secrecy of the indictments renders the privilege of R.C. 2317.05 inapplicable. We disagree.

The criminal docket of the court of common pleas is a public record and it reflected that an indictment was returned for Mike Oney. It is axiomatic that a court speaks through its docket and journals. Indus. Comm. v. Musselli (1921), 102 Ohio St. 10, 130 N.E. 32.

By its terms, R.C. 2317.05 protects fair and impartial reporting of the return of any indictment. The facts material to our determination are not in dispute. Therefore, we find that the publication was privileged pursuant to R.C. 2317.05 and we reinstate the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Hudak and the News Journal.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES and WRIGHT, JJ., concur.

LOCHER and DOUGLAS, JJ., separately concur in judgment.


I concur in the judgment of the majority. However, I also agree with Justice Douglas that this case presents the opportunity to overrule the erroneous decision in Embers Supper Club, Inc. v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 22, 9 OBR 115, 457 N.E.2d 1164, and that we should do so today.


While I concur in the judgment of the majority, I do not concur in the majority's further attempt to salvage something out of Embers Supper Club, Inc. v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 22, 9 OBR 115, 457 N.E.2d 1164. Today this court makes a further attempt at "explaining" Embers. Just last year we modified Embers in Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Pub. Co. (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 176, 512 N.E.2d 979. This court, rather than continuing to "explain" and "modify" Embers, should, more appropriately, overrule the case and send it to the early demise it so richly deserves. The reasons for this become more obvious as time goes on. Well-intentioned persons rely on the case for propositions that, in the first place, should never have been promulgated. The case at bar is yet another good example. The very omnipresence of Embers brings about suits, and the threat of suits, like the one now before us. Such suits, and threats of suit, are time-consuming and expensive to defend. As such, they present a sub silentio chilling effect on those who have not only the responsibility but also the duty to report the news. The sooner this blight is eradicated, the better off all the citizens of Ohio will be.

With today's "explanation" of Embers and our "modification" of the case in our decision in Lansdowne, one can only hope that soon the explanations and modifications will swallow the rule of Embers and the case will be modified and explained out of existence. In the case before us, we are presented with the opportunity to overrule Embers. We should do so.


Summaries of

Oney v. Allen

Supreme Court of Ohio
Oct 12, 1988
39 Ohio St. 3d 103 (Ohio 1988)

In Oney v. Allen (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 103, 529 N.E.2d 471, paragraph two of the syllabus, we held that a publication is privileged pursuant to R.C. 2317.05 as long as it is a substantially accurate report of the official record.

Summary of this case from Young v. the Morning Journal

In Oney, we responded to problems created by Embers Supper Club, Inc. v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 22, 9 OBR 115, 457 N.E.2d 1164 (see, also, Lansdowne v. Beacon Journal Pub. Co., 32 Ohio St.3d 176, 180, 512 N.E.2d 979, 984), and noted that the inclusion of additional information in a publication does not automatically destroy the privilege granted by R.C. 2317.05.

Summary of this case from Young v. the Morning Journal

In Oney, the issue was whether publication by a newspaper that "Mike Oney, 32, of Noble Road, Shiloh," had been indicted for "trafficking" was a "fair and impartial" report of an indictment of "Mike Oney (aka) Stoney" for "trafficking" and, as such, was privileged pursuant to R.C. 2317.05.

Summary of this case from Sullins v. Raycom Media, Inc.
Case details for

Oney v. Allen

Case Details

Full title:ONEY ET AL., APPELLEES, v. ALLEN ET AL.; THE NEWS JOURNAL ET AL.…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Oct 12, 1988

Citations

39 Ohio St. 3d 103 (Ohio 1988)
529 N.E.2d 471

Citing Cases

Young v. the Morning Journal

We recently held that "in order to show that a publication falls within the privilege of R.C. 2317.05, the…

Gupta v. the Lima News

The publication of a fair and impartial report of * * * the filing of any affidavit, pleading, or other…