M.C., Matter of
| Decision Date | 01 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 18585,18585 |
| Citation | 527 N.W.2d 290,23 MediaL.Rep. 1461 |
| Parties | 23 Media L. Rep. 1461 In the Matter of M.C., An Allegedly Delinquent Child. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Jon E. Arneson, Sioux Falls, for appellant Argus Leader.
Delmar Walter, Minnehaha County Public Defender, Sioux Falls, for M.C., child.
Argus Leader appeals the trial court's order denying access to a juvenile proceeding. We affirm.
On September 1, 1993, M.C., a minor, allegedly shot and killed another minor. As a result of this incident, a juvenile delinquency petition was filed against M.C. in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
On November 10, 1993, the Argus Leader (Argus), a Sioux Falls newspaper, filed a motion to open further proceedings and to obtain a transcript of the transfer hearing. Both motions were based on the same ground, i.e., there is a compelling reason to open the juvenile hearings pursuant to SDCL 26-7A-36. 1 At a motion for access hearing on November 29, 1993, Argus' counsel and M.C.'s counsel presented oral arguments in favor of and in opposition to the motions. No evidence was presented.
After hearing arguments from each party, the trial court asked Argus' counsel to propose an order for access which would comply with SDCL 26-7A-38. 2 The Argus declined this offer and renewed its request for unqualified access.
The trial court issued an order closing all proceedings and denying access to the transfer hearing transcript because Argus failed to present "compelling reasons to require otherwise" as prescribed by SDCL 26-7A-36. Argus appeals. We affirm.
a. Did the trial court correctly place the burden of proof and persuasion on the Argus?
b. Did the trial court adequately consider the public's interest in open proceedings and the qualified constitutional right to access?
c. Was the trial court's conclusion that the alleged delinquent act did not present "compelling reasons" clearly erroneous?
d. Did the trial court err in ruling that none of the previous record in this case was properly within the scope of the access hearing?
The constitutionality of SDCL 26-7A-36 is not challenged in this case. Therefore, we review the trial court's order closing hearings under the abuse of discretion standard. Associated Press v. Bradshaw, 410 N.W.2d 577, 579 (S.D.1987). "An abuse of discretion 'refers to a discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against reason and evidence.' " Matter of Hughes County Action No. Juvenile 90-3, 452 N.W.2d 128, 133 (S.D.1990) ().
The trial court's findings of fact will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous and we are, after a review of all the evidence, left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. In re J.A.H., 502 N.W.2d 120 (S.D.1993). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Permann v. S.D. Dept. of Labor, Unemp. Ins. Div., 411 N.W.2d 113, 117 (S.D.1987).
Prior to 1991, the law in South Dakota afforded the general public access to juvenile court hearings unless a request to close the hearings was made by the child, his parents, or their attorney. See SDCL 26-8-32 (repealed 1991). 3 In 1991, the legislature restricted the public's right to access juvenile hearings by enacting SDCL 26-7A-36. That statute provides: "All [juvenile court] hearings ... are closed unless the court finds compelling reasons to require otherwise."
Argus argues that the trial court failed to correctly apply a balancing test used by this court in construing the former juvenile closure statute. Associated Press, 410 N.W.2d at 579. 4 This balancing test no longer applies as the legislature has abrogated the presumption of open juvenile hearings.
Did the trial court correctly place the burden of proof and persuasion on the Argus?
Argus claims the trial court erred by placing the burden of proof and persuasion on them. We find this claim to be lacking merit.
" " Frank Stinson Chevrolet, Inc. v. Connelly, 356 N.W.2d 480, 482 (S.D.1984) (quoting Verschoor v. Miller, 259 Iowa 170, 143 N.W.2d 385, 388 (1966)). SDCL 26-7A-36 provides that juvenile proceedings are "closed unless the court finds compelling reasons to require otherwise." Argus filed the motion to open these hearings; therefore, it bears the burden of proving to the court that "compelling reasons" require open proceedings. SDCL 26-7A-36.
Did the trial court adequately consider the public's interest in open proceedings and the qualified constitutional right to access?
Argus argues that the trial court did not adequately consider the overwhelming public interest and the qualified constitutional right of access to open hearings.
The trial court was not able to accurately assess these interests because there was no evidence presented at the access hearing; only argument of counsel. Argument by the parties' counsel is not evidence. SDCL 26-7A-36 specifically requires that the court find "compelling reasons" before opening juvenile hearings to the public. Despite the lack of evidence, the record clearly indicates the trial court considered the public interest. In its decision, the trial court wrote:
There was no mention of having received a good many letters from the public about this case which, while hardly a final barometer of public opinion and thought, might give some small indication as to how the public perceived events. No other media group, save the KELO TV station, asked to be included in or moved to open the hearings. No other TV or radio stations, public or private, have asked entry and there are numerous stations in this area.
Not even the victim's family has asked admittance. The point to be made is that the applicant suggests the public has this great driving interest in this case; yet it produces no evidence demonstrating so.
Argus claims they have a "qualified constitutional right of access." We agree; however, the legislature has modified this qualified right of access by requiring "compelling reasons" before such access will be permitted. SDCL 26-7A-36 is clear and unambiguous. The legislature did not intend to allow the media or the general public open access to juvenile hearings.
There are obviously competing interests in this case between the public right to know and the juvenile's right to remain anonymous. Such competing interests were discussed in In re J.D.C., 594 A.2d 70, 76 (D.C.App.1991), where the court held:
The competing interest of the press or of a member thereof to attend a specific juvenile proceeding stands on far less firm footing. Adult criminal trials have traditionally been open to the public, and representatives of the media have a right to attend them. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572, 580, 100 S.Ct. 2814, [2825] 2829, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980). These principles do not control, however, where the interests of a minor child are at issue. (cites omitted) As the court explained in Edward A. Sherman Publishing Co. v. Goldberg, --- R.I. ----, 443 A.2d 1252, 1258 (1982),
[t]he right of access to criminal trials as established in Richmond Newspapers ... does not apply to juvenile proceedings. The principal of an open trial has as its goals the protection of defendant against possible prosecutorial or judicial abuse. The interest of the juvenile, however, are most often best served by anonymity and confidentiality.
In this case, the trial court correctly denied access to the juvenile hearings because the best interest of the child required keeping the proceedings closed. The purpose behind closed juvenile proceedings is to "protectively rehabilitate juveniles," in which "the maintenance of confidentiality is a necessary corollary of that purpose." San Bernardino Cty. DSS v. Superior Court, 232 Cal.App.3d 188, 283 Cal.Rptr. 332, 339 (4 Dist.1991). The Argus presented no evidence to outweigh this protective design, which would have prevailed over the service of such interest.
Was the trial court's conclusion that the alleged delinquent act did not constitute "compelling reasons" clearly erroneous?
Argus claims the trial court erroneously concluded that the nature and circumstances of the alleged delinquent act were not compelling reasons to open the hearings. We disagree. The fact that this incident is of extreme consequence does not ipso facto force opening the juvenile hearings. Evidence must demonstrate that "compelling reasons" exist before opening the juvenile court doors. SDCL 26-7A-36.
If the legislature intended that certain alleged criminal conduct on the part of a juvenile would constitute automatic opening of the proceedings, the legislature, in its wisdom, would have certainly so stated. An example of such an exercise of legislative prerogative is contained in West's Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code Section 676, which provides as follows:
(a) Unless requested by the minor concerning whom the petition has been filed and any parent or guardian present, the public shall not be admitted to a juvenile court hearing. Nothing in this section shall preclude the attendance of up to two family members of the prosecuting witness for the support of that witness, as authorized by Section 868.5 of the Penal Code. The judge or referee may nonetheless admit those persons he or she deems to have a direct and legitimate interest in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sioux Falls Argus Leader v. Miller
...452 N.W.2d 128 (S.D.1990). See also Assoc. Press v. Bradshaw, 410 N.W.2d 577 (S.D. 1987), superseded by statute as stated in In re M.C., 527 N.W.2d 290 (S.D.1995). 10. Media relies on Montana ex rel Missoulian v. Montana Dist. Ct., 281 Mont. 285, 933 P.2d 829 (1997), and the Ohio case upon ......
-
State v. Rolfe
...child by providing anonymity and confidentiality, which serves the rehabilitative goals of the juvenile justice system. See In re M.C., 527 N.W.2d 290, 293 (S.D.1995) (citing In re J.D.C., 594 A.2d 70, 76 (D.C.1991) and San Bernardino Cty. Dept. of Pub. Soc. Servs. v. Super. Ct., 232 Cal.Ap......
-
Rothluebbers v. Obee
...divorce actions, properly commenced first in South Dakota, in favor of another state's jurisdiction." Id. at 244 (citing In re M.C., 527 N.W.2d 290, 293 (S.D.1995)). The difference between the present case and Lustig is great. In Lustig, the Court neither raised nor considered SDCL 1-1-24 w......
-
Lustig v. Lustig
...means to dismiss divorce actions, properly commenced first in South Dakota, in favor of another state's jurisdiction. See In re M.C., 527 N.W.2d 290, 293 (S.D.1995)(we presume the legislature is clear about the result it intends); Behrns v. Burke, 89 S.D. 96, 108, 229 N.W.2d 86, 93 (1975)(j......