Clarifying Exceptions to Autopsy Photograph Exemption under Georgia’s Open Records Act

Introduction

In Wallace v. State, 345 Ga. ___ (2025), the Supreme Court of Georgia addressed whether autopsy photographs collected in a criminal prosecution must be disclosed under Georgia’s Open Records Act (ORA), OCGA § 50-18-70 et seq., despite a statutory exemption. Antonio Wallace, a 2011 felony‐murder convict with a pending habeas corpus petition, sought the State’s original autopsy photographs for review by his expert. The District Attorney declined to release them, citing the ORA exemption in OCGA § 45-16-27(d). Wallace contended that his request fell within the two statutory exceptions—“medical purposes” and “public interest.” The superior court rejected those arguments, and on May 6, 2025, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court unanimously held that:

1. “Medical purposes” exception – Disclosure to a physician for a purely legal review does not qualify as a medical purpose. Wallace’s expert was retained to develop an ineffective‐assistance‐of‐counsel claim, which the Court deemed a legal rather than medical objective.
2. “Public interest” exception – A court‐ordered disclosure in closed criminal investigations must show that (a) disclosure serves the public interest and (b) that interest outweighs any privacy interest of the deceased’s next of kin. Because the victim died in Florida (placing OCGA § 45-16-24 off point) and the family objected, Wallace failed to establish a countervailing public interest.
3. As neither exception applied, the statutory exemption in OCGA § 45-16-27(d) controls and the superior court’s order denying access was affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Wallace v. State, 309 Ga. 823 (848 SE2d 72) (2020) – affirmed Wallace’s underlying felony‐murder conviction.
• OCGA § 45-16-27(d) – statutory text exempting autopsy photographs from ORA disclosure, with exceptions for medical purposes, public interest, and law enforcement.
• State v. SASS Grp., LLC, 315 Ga. 893 (885 SE2d 761) (2023) – endorsed use of contemporaneous dictionaries for statutory interpretation.
• Contemporaneous American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam‐Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary – defining “medical” as tied to the practice or study of medicine.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court applied traditional tools of statutory construction:

1. Open Records Act framework: OCGA § 50-18-71(a) makes “all public records” open for inspection except those “specifically exempted by law,” which includes autopsy photographs under § 45-16-27(d).
2. “Medical purposes” exception: The Court examined dictionary definitions from around 2002 (the enactment year) and concluded that “medical” connotes actual diagnosis, treatment, or practice of medicine. Here, the expert’s review was aimed at building a legal claim, not treating or diagnosing a patient, so it fell outside the exception.
3. “Public interest” exception: The statute authorizes a superior court to order disclosure in “closed criminal investigations” upon written findings that (a) disclosure is in the public interest and (b) it outweighs any privacy interest of the next of kin. Wallace argued that fairness in a Georgia prosecution demands review of an out‐of-state autopsy. The Court, however, held that OCGA § 45-16-24 (governing Georgia autopsies) did not apply to a death in Florida. With the family’s privacy interest asserted, Wallace could not show a public interest sufficient to override it.

3. Impact

This decision clarifies the scope of OCGA § 45-16-27(d) and limits attempts by criminal defendants or habeas petitioners to use the Open Records Act to obtain autopsy photographs for legal strategy. Future litigants will need to show a genuine medical purpose—such as diagnostic or treatment needs—or meet the stringent public interest test with strong countervailing proof. The ruling promotes respect for next‐of‐kin privacy and confines ORA exemptions to their textual bounds, discouraging “legal fishing expeditions” for sensitive forensic materials.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Open Records Act (ORA): Georgia law granting public access to government records, but allowing specific statutory exemptions.
• Autopsy photographs: Images taken during a post‐mortem examination; generally sensitive and protected to respect the deceased and their family.
• “Medical purpose” exception: Allows disclosure of autopsy photos to a qualified physician when needed for genuine medical evaluation or treatment.
• “Public interest” exception: Permits a court, in a closed criminal case, to order release if the benefit to the public (e.g., transparency or fairness) outweighs the family’s privacy interests.
• Habeas corpus: A collateral proceeding in which a prisoner challenges the legality of their conviction or imprisonment.

Conclusion

Wallace v. State reaffirms that autopsy photographs are presumptively exempt from disclosure under Georgia’s Open Records Act and that the two textual exceptions—medical purposes and public interest—are interpreted narrowly. A request aimed solely at advancing a legal claim does not qualify as a medical purpose, and a finding of public interest must rest on statutory prerequisites that Wallace’s case did not satisfy. This ruling underscores the legislature’s intent to guard forensic materials from routine release while providing limited pathways for access when genuine medical or compelling public interests are demonstrated.