Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Dist. v. Lee Newspapers, Dba the Casper Star-Tribune, the Douglas Budget, L.P.

Decision Date12 August 2014
Docket NumberNo. S–14–0015.,S–14–0015.
PartiesCIRCUIT COURT OF the EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Appellant (Defendant), v. LEE NEWSPAPERS, dba The Casper Star–Tribune, The Douglas Budget, L.P. dba, The Douglas Budget and The Glenrock Independent, The Wyoming Press Association, and The Associated Press, Appellees (Plaintiffs).
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Representing Appellant: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; Martin L. Hardsocg, Deputy Attorney General; Cathleen D. Parker, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Parker.

Representing Appellees: Bruce T. Moats, Law Office of Bruce T. Moats, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Before BURKE, C.J., and, HILL, KITE,*DAVIS, and FOX, JJ.

FOX, Justice.

[¶ 1] The Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial District (circuit court) closed the court proceedings in a juvenile sexual assault case and sealed the court file, purportedly in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–319(a) (LexisNexis 2013). The circuit court denied existence of the case file, and barred the news organizations (appellees) from attending any court proceedings. The appellees moved to intervene to gain access to information pertaining to the case, but the defendant was bound over to district court before the circuit court ruled on the motion. The appellees then filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court. The district court found that the circuit court erred when it closed the court proceedings and denied existence of the case file. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] 1. Have the parties presented a justiciable controversy?

2. Did the circuit court violate the United States Constitution when it closed the court proceedings and sealed the court records?

3. Did the circuit court correctly interpret Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–319(a)?

FACTS

[¶ 3] In May 2012, the Converse County Sheriff's Department issued an AMBER Alert, notifying the public that a minor child had been reported missing, and requesting assistance in finding the child. The sheriff's department publicly released the name of the minor in an attempt to find her. A man was later arrested and charged with sexual assault of a minor in connection with the AMBER Alert and the missing child. Following the arrest, the Chief Deputy County Attorney of Converse County requested that the circuit court restrict disclosure of information related to the case in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–319(a). Without a hearing or findings on the record, the circuit court granted the request by sealing all case files and barring public attendance at all circuit court proceedings.

[¶ 4] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–319(a) provides:

Prior to the filing of an information or indictment in district court charging a violation of an offense under this article, neither the names of the alleged actor or the victim of the charged offense nor any other information reasonably likely to disclose the identity of the victim shall be released or negligently allowed to be released to the public by any public employee except as authorized by the judge with jurisdiction over the criminal charges. The actor's name may be released to the public to aid or facilitate an arrest.

[¶ 5] The statute only applies [p]rior to the filing of an information or indictment in district court,” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–319(a), during the short time it takes the circuit court to hold a preliminary hearing and determine whether probable cause exists to commence further proceedings. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5–9–132(b) (LexisNexis 2013); W.R.Cr.P. 5.1(a). Once that determination is made, the circuit court either binds the defendant over to district court, or dismisses the case altogether. W.R.Cr.P. 5.1(b), (c).

[¶ 6] Following the circuit court's closure of the court proceedings and sealing of the case file, The Casper Star–Tribune,1 aware of the case through the AMBER Alert and other sources, filed a motion to intervene, requesting that the circuit court unseal the case file and open any court proceedings to the public. The following day, the defendant waived the preliminary hearing, and the case was bound over to the district court before the circuit court ruled on the newspaper's motion.

[¶ 7] The Casper Star–Tribune, along with other news agencies (collectively the appellees), then filed a declaratory judgment action in the district court “seeking a ruling on whether Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–319(a) required the closure of records and proceedings in cases alleging sexual assault.” The parties stipulated to the facts of the case, and the district court granted summary judgment to the appellees, holding that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6–2–319(a) does not require either the records or the court proceedings be closed. The district court found that a redacted case file would serve to both protect the parties involved in the action and provide information to the public. The district court went on to recognize that the circuit court can conduct public hearings by using initials for the alleged victim and defendant, again serving the dual purpose of protecting the parties and allowing such court proceedings to be open to public scrutiny. The circuit court timely appealed.

[¶ 8] The appellees do not challenge the circuit court's confidential treatment of the victim's identity, nor do they dispute that the statute prohibits the circuit court from releasing the name of the alleged actor. The issue before us is how far a circuit court may go to prevent the release of the accused's name before it runs afoul of the First Amendment. Our opinion, therefore, focuses on the constitutional limits to the statutory protections afforded to the alleged actor charged with sexual assault under Wyoming statute Title 6, Article 3.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 9] Our standards for reviewing the district court's order granting summary judgment are well established. We treat the summary judgment movant's motion as though it has been presented originally to us. We use the same materials in the record that was before the district court. Using the materials in the record, we examine them from the vantage point most favorable to the nonmoving party opposing the motion, giving that party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may fairly be drawn from the materials.... We review questions of law de novo without giving any deference to the district court's determinations.

Bangs v. Schroth, 2009 WY 20, ¶ 20, 201 P.3d 442, 451–52 (Wyo.2009) (internal citations omitted). Constitutional challenges present issues of law which we review de novo.Operation Save Am. v. City of Jackson, 2012 WY 51, ¶ 17, 275 P.3d 438, 447 (Wyo.2012).

DISCUSSION

I. Have the parties presented a justiciable controversy?

[¶ 10] The circuit court asserts this case is moot because [t]he transcripts of any hearings in front of the Circuit Court are available.” The appellees claim that the controversy remains as the transcripts of the hearing held in circuit court have not been released. The record is unclear on this factual issue. However, regardless of whether the transcripts were made available to the appellees, we find that this case presents a justiciable controversy.

The doctrine of mootness encompasses those circumstances which destroy a previously justiciable controversy. This doctrine represents the time element of standing by requiring that the interests of the parties which were originally sufficient to confer standing persist throughout the duration of the suit. Thus, the central question in a mootness case is “whether decision of a once living dispute continues to be justified by a sufficient prospect that the decision will have an impact on the parties.”

Southwestern Pub. Serv. Co. v. Thunder Basin Coal Co., 978 P.2d 1138, 1143 (Wyo.1999) (citations omitted).

[¶ 11] If the transcripts have not been made available, the controversy continues, and there remains an available remedy for the appellees—namely, access to the transcript.2See Williams v. Stafford, 589 P.2d 322, 326 (Wyo.1979) (In cases where a proceeding is closed erroneously, the court “should release the record of the proceedings to the public.”), abrogated on other grounds in Vaughn v. State, 962 P.2d 149, 151–52 (Wyo.1998). Our decision in this matter would impact the parties as it would provide relief to appellees by ensuring that they secure the transcript to the circuit court proceedings.

[¶ 12] If the transcript has, in fact, been made available to the appellees, the case may be rendered moot. We generally dismiss such cases for lack of a justiciable controversy. In Interest of AJ, 736 P.2d 721, 723 (Wyo.1987) (Courts do not sit for the purpose of expounding the law upon abstract questions, but to determine the rights of litigants by the rendition of effective judgment.”). However, [t]he rule that a case must be dismissed when it becomes moot is not absolute.” Operation Save Am., 2012 WY 51, ¶ 22, 275 P.3d at 448. We have decided a technically moot issue when: (1) the issue is one of great public importance; (2) we have deemed it necessary to provide guidance to state agencies and lower courts; or (3) the “controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review.” Id. at ¶¶ 22–23, 275 P.3d at 448–49. In this case, all three exceptions apply.

[¶ 13] The issues before us implicate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, demonstrating the public importance of such a dispute. See id. at ¶ 26, 275 P.3d at 449 (“As a starting point, the case concerns a fundamental constitutional right[.]). Moreover, the accessibility of the judiciary is of considerable public concern as public access ensures that the constitutionally protected right to discuss governmental affairs remains free and open. See Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cnty., 457 U.S. 596, 604–05, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 2619, 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982) (“Underlying the First Amendment right of access to criminal trials is the common understanding that ‘a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Guy v. Wyo. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 9 d2 Julho d2 2019
    ...party will be subjected to the same action again." Circuit Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. v. Lee Newspapers , 2014 WY 101, ¶ 15, 332 P.3d 523, 528 (Wyo. 2014) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Mr. Guy did not argue below and has not argued on appeal that this exception applied. See, ......
  • Gordon v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 22 d4 Março d4 2018
    ...the approval required by Article 3, § 31.[¶25] Citing Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial District v. Lee Newspapers , 2014 WY 101, ¶ 27, 332 P.3d 523, 532 (Wyo. 2014), and Merrill v. Jansma , 2004 WY 26, ¶ 40, 86 P.3d 270, 287 (Wyo. 2004), respectively, the State asserts this Court must p......
  • Conrad v. The Uinta Cnty. Republican Party
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 18 d4 Maio d4 2023
    ...1999)) (some citations and quotation marks omitted). Although we typically dismiss moot cases, the rule is not absolute. Id., ¶ 12, 332 P.3d at 528. We may decide technically moot cases when, inter alia, "the 'controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review.'" Id. (quoting Operation......
  • Brown v. State, S-16-0148
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 1 d1 Maio d1 2017
    ...use of initials where appropriate. See, e.g., Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Dist. v. Lee Newspapers, 2014 WY 101, ¶ 37, 332 P.3d 523, 533 (Wyo. 2014). Whether contempt proceedings are brought in juvenile or district court, the courts' maintenance of confidentiality has been inconsist......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Modern Penny Dreadful: Public Prosecution and the Need for Litigation Privacy in a Digital Age
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 96, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...Ct. App. 2012)). 137. Id. at 289 (alteration in original). 138. Id. at 290. 139. Circuit Court of Eighth Judicial Dist. v. Lee Newspapers, 332 P.3d 523 (Wyo. 140. Id. at 531. 141. Id. at 533. 142. Id. at 534 ("If the circuit court believes there is a compelling interest in further limiting ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT