Decker, Matter of, 24272

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 471 S.E.2d 462,322 S.C. 215
• Parties: , 23 Media L. Rep. 2542 In the Matter of Twila DECKER, Appellant. In re the STATE, Respondent, v. Susan SMITH, Respondent. . Heard
• Docket Number: No. 24272,24272
• Decision Date: 06 July 1995

Page 462

471 S.E.2d 462 322 S.C. 215, 23 Media L. Rep. 2542 In the Matter of Twila DECKER, Appellant.
In re the STATE, Respondent,
v.
Susan SMITH, Respondent. No. 24272. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Heard July 6, 1995.
Refiled July 11, 1995.

[322 S.C. 216] Jay Bender and Charles E. Baker of Baker, Barwick, Ravenel and Bender, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Atty. Gen. John W. McIntosh, Asst. Deputy Atty. Gen. Salley W. Elliott and Asst. Atty. Gen. G. Robert Deloach, III, Columbia, and Sol. Thomas E. Pope, Rock Hill, for respondent, State of South Carolina.

David I. Bruck and Judy Clarke, Columbia, for respondent, Susan Smith.

Cheryl Perkins, Columbia and Jane E. Kirtley and Daniel E. Katz, Arlington, VA, for amici curiae, Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press and the South Carolina Press Ass'n.

PER CURIAM:

Twila Decker, a reporter for The State newspaper, appeals a circuit court order holding her in civil contempt. We affirm.

[322 S.C. 217] FACTS

This case involves a newspaper article written by Decker about Susan Smith, who is charged with the murder of her two children. By order of the circuit court on March 23, 1995, Smith was ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation by the South Carolina Department of Mental Health (DMH). Due to extensive pre-trial publicity, the circuit court issued an order on May 16, 1995 requiring the report be disclosed only to defense counsel and the solicitor, both of whom were ordered to maintain the confidentiality of the report. ¹ They were not permitted to divulge the contents to any witness whose knowledge

Page 463

was not essential; disclosure "to any other party or individual prior to trial" was prohibited.

On May 25, 1995, The State published an article written by Decker which purported to summarize portions of DMH's psychiatric evaluation of Smith. The following day, the court conducted a hearing to determine the source of Decker's information. The court concluded that only four entities had had access to the report: the DMH, the 16th Circuit Solicitor, Smith's defense counsel, and the court itself. The court took the testimony of the DMH's Chief of Public Safety, Freddie Lorick, who had conducted an investigation and testified that "there was not a breach of confidentiality on the part of the DMH or its employees in this case." The court then heard from Solicitor Pope who, as an officer of the court, advised that only three people in his office had viewed the report and none of them had breached confidentiality. Defense counsel submitted an affidavit indicating that the defense team was not the source of any "leaks." Finally, the court ascertained that its office was not the source of any breach.

Unable to ascertain the source of the breach of confidentiality, the trial judge called Decker as a witness. Decker acknowledged she had a contract with a confidential source who had provided her with information relative to the report, but she refused to reveal the source, citing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the South Carolina "Reporter's Shield Law," S.C.Code Ann. § 19-11-100 (Supp.1994). When Decker refused to reveal her source, the circuit [322 S.C. 218] court held her in contempt of court and ordered her incarcerated, provided that she could purge the contempt by revealing the identity of the confidential source. This Court stayed imposition of the contempt sanction pending disposition of this appeal.

ISSUES

1. Does the South Carolina Reporter's Shield Law provide Decker a qualified privilege to withhold her confidential source?

2. Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution grant Decker a privilege to withhold her confidential source?

I. REPORTER'S SHIELD LAW

S.C.Code Ann. § 19-11-100 (Supp.1994) provides, in pertinent part:

(A) A person ... engaged in the gathering and dissemination of news for the public through a newspaper ... has a qualified privilege against disclosure of any information ... obtained ... in the gathering or dissemination of news in any judicial ... proceeding in which the compelled disclosure is sought and where the one asserting the privilege is not a party in interest to the proceeding.

(B) The person ... may not be compelled to disclose any information ... obtained ... in the gathering or dissemination of news unless the party seeking to compel the production or testimony establishes by clear and convincing evidence that ... the testimony or production sought:

(1) is material and relevant to the controversy for which the testimony or production is sought;

(2) cannot be reasonably obtained by alternative means;

(3) is necessary to the proper preparation or presentation of the case of a party seeking the information ...

On its face, the reporter's shield law is inapplicable to the present case. A party is a person whose name is designated on the record as a plaintiff or defendant. Bergsieker v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 849 S.W.2d 156, 165 (Mo.App.1993). Here, the disclosure of Decker's source is [322 S.C. 219] sought by the trial court, clearly not a party to the underlying proceedings. "A statute should be so construed that no word, clause, sentence, provision or part shall be rendered surplusage, or superfluous...." 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 346. See also Savannah Bank & Trust Co. of Savannah v. Shuman, 250 S.C. 344, 157 S.E.2d 864 (1967). Had the legislature intended the statute to apply in circumstances in which the trial court seeks disclosure, it would not have limited application of the statute to circumstances where a "party" seeks to compel

Page 464

production. Accordingly, we find the reporter's shield law inapplicable.

Moreover, the purpose of the reporter's shield law, as set forth in the preamble, is as follows:

Whereas, the General Assembly finds that it is vital in a democratic society that the public have an unrestricted flow of information on matters of concern to the public and that the threat of compelled testimony or production of information ... obtained ... in gathering or disseminating news to the public interferes with the free flow of information to the public.

Act No. 138, 1993 S.C. Acts 391. (Emphasis supplied). As noted previously, the mental health report, which was ordered by the...