Case Title: State v. Densmore

Citation: 160 Vt. 131, 624 A.2d 1138

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-03-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE_V_DENSMORE.91-434; 160 Vt. 131; 624 A.2d 1138


[Filed 12-Mar-1993]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 No. 91-434


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 3, Caledonia Circuit

 Richard Densmore                             December Term, 1992



 Walter M. Morris, Jr., J.

 Philip H. White and Susan L. Stitely of Wilson & White, P.C., Montpelier,
    for appellant-intervenor

 E.M. Allen, Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate Attorney,
    Montpelier, for defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      GIBSON, J.   Intervenor Caledonian-Record Publishing Co. appeals from a
 district court order denying its motion for access to a psychosexual evalu-
 ation of a criminal defendant submitted to the court for consideration in
 sentencing.  Intervenor claims that the court violated its First Amendment
 right of access to criminal proceedings by sealing the document without
 making specific findings indicating that alternatives to closure were
 inadequate to protect the compelling interests at stake.  We agree and
 reverse.
      Defendant Richard Densmore was charged with four counts of lewd and
 lascivious conduct and one count of sexual assault.  Following negotiations,
 he agreed to plead nolo contendere to three counts of lewd and lascivious
 conduct, and the State agreed to dismiss the other charges.  The State also
 agreed to recommend three consecutive sentences of one to five years, all
 suspended except for twenty days on each charge.  Defendant, joined by the
 State's Attorney, submitted a psychosexual evaluation to the court in
 support of the plea agreement; they requested that the court consider the
 evaluation in lieu of a presentence report and that the evaluation remain
 confidential.  Intervenor objected to sealing the evaluation.  The court
 noted the objection.
      After reviewing the evaluation, the court rejected the proposed plea
 agreement, and defendant withdrew the evaluation.  The court then indicated
 that it would be willing to accept a plea if the time served were increased
 from twenty to thirty days on each charge.  Defendant agreed and proceeded
 to sentencing.
      After sentencing, intervenor was heard briefly on its objection to the
 sealing of the evaluation.  The court ordered defense counsel to maintain
 the document under seal until further order.  Thereafter, intervenor
 formally moved to intervene and for access to the evaluation on the ground
 that it had been considered by the court in determining defendant's
 sentence.  Following a full hearing, the court concluded that the press and
 the public have a qualified First Amendment and common-law right of access
 to documents filed with the court in connection with sentencing proceedings.
 It concluded, however, that compelling privacy interests outweighed
 disclosure of the contents of the document to the press and public and that
 no lesser remedy than continued sealing of the document was available to
 protect these interests.  Intervenor appeals from this decision.
      The United States Supreme Court has developed a two-step analysis in
 determining the public right of access to preliminary criminal proceedings
 under the First Amendment.  See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of
 California,