Daniels by Glass v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 December 1993
• Docket Number: WAL-MART,No. 90-CA-1208,90-CA-1208
• Citation: 634 So.2d 88
• Parties: Albert Shun DANIELS, By Ella R. GLASS, Next Friend v.STORES, INC. and Terrel Cooper.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 88

634 So.2d 88

Albert Shun DANIELS, By Ella R. GLASS, Next Friend v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. and Terrel Cooper.

No. 90-CA-1208.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 9, 1993.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1994.

Laurel G. Weir, Weir & Booker, Thomas L. Booker, Jr., Weir & Booker, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Edley H. Jones, III, Upshaw Williams Biggers Page & Kruger, Jackson, for appellee.

Before PRATHER, P.J., and PITTMAN and SMITH, JJ.

PITTMAN, Justice, for the Court:

Albert Shun Daniels, through his next friend, filed a civil suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (hereinafter Wal-Mart) and Terrell Cooper alleging Cooper, an employee of Wal-Mart, slandered, assaulted and battered Daniels on November 3, 1989. The civil suit arose from an incident in which Daniels was accused of shop-lifting. The case proceeded to trial, with the jury returning a verdict for defendant Wal-Mart. The circuit judge thereafter refused to grant the Daniels' motion for j.n.o.v. or new trial. Feeling aggrieved, Daniels appeals, asserting as error:

I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING USE OF AN ADJUDICATION OF DELINQUENCY FOR PLAINTIFF TO BE USED AGAINST HIM IN THE TRIAL OF THIS CAUSE.

II. THE COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING EVIDENCE TO BE INTRODUCED AGAINST APPELLANT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT HE HAD BEEN ARRESTED.

III. THE COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ORDER OF THE YOUTH COURT BECAUSE IT REVEALS PUNISHMENT AMONG OTHER REASONS.

IV. THE RULING OF THE COURT AND JUDGMENT OF THE JURY IS CONTRARY TO THE OVERWHELMING

WEIGHT OF THE LAW AND EVIDENCE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY LAW OR EVIDENCE.

V. THE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING JURY INSTRUCTION D-11A OVER THE OBJECTION OF APPELLANT.

VI. THE COURT ERRED IN REFUSING EACH AND EVERY INSTRUCTION REFUSED THE APPELLANT AND GRANTING EACH AND EVERY INSTRUCTION GRANTED APPELLEES OVER THE OBJECTION OF APPELLANT.

Having considered the assignments of error, we hereby affirm the lower court's judgment, and make special note that the veil of confidentiality given youth court proceedings can be lifted, thereby allowing evidence from the proceedings to be introduced in a civil trial when the plaintiff youth court offender initiates a suit stemming from the same incident.

I.

On November 3, 1989, Albert Shun Daniels was shopping at Wal-Mart in Louisville, Mississippi. Daniels, who was sixteen at the time of trial in September 1989, was apparently shopping in the tape department of the store. Terrel Cooper was working as a security guard at Wal-Mart that day. Cooper testified he observed Daniels take a tape, go to the back of the store, and stuff it down in his sock. Cooper followed Daniels through the store, and told him "I seen what you done," before Daniels exited the store. Cooper said he was giving Daniels the opportunity to put the tape back or pay for it.

When Daniels exited the store without paying for the tape, Cooper said he followed him outside, identified himself as a security officer and asked Daniels to return inside the store. According to Cooper, no more words were said after that point. After Cooper asked Daniels to step back, Daniels proceeded to push and shove. Cooper grabbed Daniels around the waist and tried to "keep him from hurting me and hurting himself." Cooper then asked the assistant manager, who was standing at the Wal-Mart door, to call the police.

Daniels said he did not steal anything and that Cooper attacked him after searching him and finding nothing. He said Cooper pushed, hit, and kicked him. Daniels said his face was swollen from where Cooper hit him. He said further that people heard Cooper accuse him of stealing the tape, and his reputation was damaged as a result. Daniels denied struggling to get away from Cooper. Although Daniels said a lot of individuals teased him about being a thief, he could not name any individuals.

John Jobe was manager of Wal-Mart at the time of the incident. He said Cooper walked by the desk and, according to Wal-Mart's standard procedure, gave him a signal that he was following a shoplifter. Jobe then went to the entrance door and stepped in front of Daniels. Cooper identified himself as a security guard for Wal-Mart, after which Daniels tried to push out the outside door. Jobe said Cooper never called Daniels a thief. When Daniels began struggling, Jobe stated that Cooper turned around and asked him to call the police. Daniels later admitted being convicted by the Youth Court.

Daniels said when the police came, Cooper told him to get in the car. Cooper said the police took him downtown because both parties were struggling when the police arrived, and they didn't know Cooper was a Wal-Mart security employee. Cooper said the charges were dropped when they got downtown. However, he said a moment later that charges were never made out.

Billy Don Walton, a policeman with the Louisville Police Department, was called to Wal-Mart November 3, 1989, because of a reported shoplifter. Walton said Cooper and Daniels were arrested. According to Walton, disorderly conduct charges were made out against Cooper, but the "judge remanded them to the files." Walton said when he drove up in front of the store, "eight or ten people out in the left door like you're going in the store, and they were holding Mr. Cooper and Mr. Daniels, two or three of them, you know, had them blocked where they couldn't get to each other, and they was talking loud and cussing each other." Walton said he heard Cooper tell Daniels "that he got a tape out of the store."

After the Wal-Mart incident, Daniels was found to be "a delinquent under the Youth Court Act," and was committed to "an appropriate training school." The youth court order does not mention shoplifting or the incident in question at all. However, the decree which released the Youth Court order to the Winston County Circuit Court and the parties in this action made the following findings:

1. Albert Shun Daniels has filed a cause of action against Wal Mart (sic) Stores, Inc. alleging libel and slander for statements by Wal Mart (sic) employees that Daniels was guilty of theft.

2. The identical facts are involved in the Circuit Court of Winston County Action, Civil Action No. 13552, as to those that were before this Youth Court in Youth Court Action No. 556.

3. The identical incident was the basis for this Court's adjudication that Albert Shun Daniels was a juvenile delinquent for the act of shoplifting of merchandise of the defendant.

4. M.C.A. Section 43-21-261(7) allows the victim of the offense, in this case Wal Mart (sic) Stores, Inc., to be informed of the disposition of the Youth Court cause, with no restrictions on the victim's use of said information.

5. It is in the best interest of functioning of the Youth Court that its adjudication of juvenile delinquency be released to the Circuit Court of Winston County and the parties to Civil Action No. 13,552 to allow the defendant the opportunity, subject to the discretion of the Circuit Court of Winston County, to place before the jury the complete facts of the incident, including a determination of this Youth Court.

II.

Daniels' counsel argued that statutes regulating the disclosure of youth court records should have barred those records from being introduced into evidence at the civil trial initiated by Daniels. Actually, the Rules of Evidence govern admission of evidence at civil trials. The statutes govern the release of the records and the restrictions thereon. If Daniels didn't want the records released or has a dispute with the reason for which they were released, he should have contested the decree which released the order to the Circuit Court of Winston County. It is actually the release which he is now contesting, but that action is not procedurally before this Court.

The decree which authorized release of the information noted that Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 43-21-261(7) (Supp.1992) allows the victim of the offense "to be informed of the disposition of the Youth Court cause, with no restrictions on the victim's use and (sic) said information." The decree further states that "[i]t is in the best interest of functioning of the Youth Court that its adjudication of juvenile delinquency be released to the Circuit Court of Winston County and the parties to Civil Action No. 13,552 to allow the defendant the opportunity, subject to the discretion of the Circuit Court of Winston County, to place before the jury the complete facts of the incident, including a determination of this Youth Court."

Although the release of the order is not properly before this Court for consideration, the release would appear to be entirely proper. Daniels argues Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 43-21-259 (1972) makes all records confidential. But an actual reading of the statute ¹ shows that the exceptions of Sec. 43-21-261 override Sec. 43-21-259. Furthermore, section 43-21-261 specifically gives the youth court authority to order release of records to the circuit court:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, records involving children shall not be disclosed, other than to necessary staff of the youth court, except pursuant to an order of the youth court specifying the person or persons to whom the records may be disclosed, the extent of the records which may be disclosed and the purpose of the disclosure. Such court orders for disclosure shall be limited to those instances in which the youth court concludes, in its discretion, that disclosure is required for the best interests of the child, the public safety or the functioning of the youth court and then only to the following persons:

. . . . .

(c) A judge of any other court or members of another court staff;

. . . . .

(2) Any records involving children which are disclosed under an order of the youth court and the contents thereof shall be kept confidential by the person or agency to whom the record is disclosed except as provided in the order. Any further disclosure of any records involving children shall be made...