State v. St. Peter

• Citation: 315 A.2d 254,132 Vt. 266
• Decision Date: 05 February 1974
• Docket Number: No. 180-73,180-73
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
• Parties: , 1 Media L. Rep. 2671 STATE of Vermont v. Catherine ST. PETER et al.

Page 254

315 A.2d 254

132 Vt. 266, 1 Media L. Rep. 2671

STATE of Vermont v. Catherine ST. PETER et al.

No. 180-73.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Feb. 5, 1974.

Paul D. Sheehey, Burlington, for John Gladding.

John S. Liccardi, Public Defender, Rutland, for Catherine St. Peter.

Richard S. Kohn, American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, Inc., Montpelier, amicus curiae.

Before SHANGRAW, C. J., and BARNEY, SMITH, KEYSER and DALEY, JJ.

BARNEY, Justice.

This case presents the anomaly of civil matter within a criminal case. The real party in interest and appellant is one John Gladding, a television news reporter charged with contempt of court. The matter was referred to this Court, with the approval of the lower court, before final judgment was rendered on the determination of contempt. Therefore, whether this is taken as a certification in a civil matter under V.R.A.P. 5, or an appeal following 13 V.S.A. § 7403, it is clear that the approved appeal must be accompanied by a written certification of the issues. This concern was referred to the parties for remedy, and certification in due form accomplished.

Part of the problem is due to the parties' interest in obtaining a ruling of law on the right of a newsman to refuse to answer certain questions in a deposition proceeding based on the assertion of a privilege deriving from the First Amendment and the protection to be accorded a free press. From the point of view of the parties pressing the appeal, an answer to the question is at least as important as any concerns relating to the disposition of the actual case or controversy before us. Unfortunately, courts cannot take that approach. It is the duty of the court to resolve the dispute before it on whatever ground may properly conclude or dispose of the litigation, and not engage unnecessarily in exercises in the derivation of abstract law.

Fortunately, this case is now so oriented that some of the issues sought to be raised are validly before us. The matter arose in connection with a deposition requested by counsel for several respondents in cases begun as a result of a certain extensive drug raid on the part of law enforcement officers in Rutland County. Mr. Gladding was apparently present at state police headquarters in Rutland when the operation began. The deposition was, as far as it had developed, an attempt by the respondent to determine the source of his foreknowledge of the episode. When asked at the deposition session about these matters, he declined to answer, claiming a privilege under the First Amendment. The matter was then referred into district court, apparently under 13 V.S.A. § 6721 (now repealed), and the questions again put. He once more refused, and the court stated for the record that he was in contempt.

Although his refusal was based on a claim of privilege, other issues were raised. He was, at the time, represented by his own counsel, who also objected that no showing of relevance, materiality, or necessity for the questions posed to his client were made. This case is unusual in that it is the respondent who is seeking information from the witness, and the state that is defending his right to confidentiality of source. It should also be a matter or record that the true issues before this Court are most helpfully discussed by an excellent brief filed amicus curiae on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, Inc.

The latest statement of the discussions of First Amendment testimonial privilege with respect to newsgatherers is Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972). The United States Supreme Court, in that case, held that there was no constitutional privilege under the First Amendment excusing newsmen from the obligation to appear and testify before grand juries (state or federal) and to answer questions relevant to an investigation into the commission of a crime. This duty they share with other citizens. This duty is coupled with a reference to the same duty incident to a criminal trial itself. It is also clear that, to date, we have no explicit constitutional definition requiring recognition of a newsman's privilege to withhold testimony, nor is any such privilege recognized at common law.

But the language and attitude of the Branzburg majority does not indicate an entire absence of concern for the newsgathering function so relevant to the full exercise of the First Amendment. The opinion confines itself to grand jury proceedings and trials. It declines to pass upon appearance of newsman before other...