Case Title: State v. Koch

Citation: 169 Vt. 109, 730 A.2d 577

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
State v. Koch   (97-261); 169 Vt. 109; 730 A.2d 577

[Filed  5-Mar-1999]

       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. 97-261

State of Vermont	                          Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.		                                  District Court of Vermont
                                                  Unit No. 1, Windham Circuit

Frederick K. Koch	                          March Term, 1998

John P. Wesley, J.

       Robert B. Hemley and Dennis R. Pearson of Gravel and Shea, Burlington,
  for Intervenors-Appellants.

       David A. Gibson, Brattleboro, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       SKOGLUND, J.   Two newspaper publishers and their reporters,
  intervenors in the above  entitled criminal proceedings, appeal the
  district court's decision closing two hearings concerning  a motion to
  revoke defendant Koch's order of nonhospitalization and the court's
  decision sealing  the nonhospitalization order that resulted from those
  hearings.  Intervenors allege that the district  court violated their
  qualified First Amendment right of access by erroneously requiring closure 
  of the hearing upon defendant's request and by giving 18 V.S.A. § 7103 an
  overly broad  construction, incompatible with the presumptive public nature
  of court documents when it sealed  the nonhospitalization order.  Without
  reaching the qualified, constitutional right-of-access issue,  we reverse
  both the trial court's decision to close the revocation hearing and to seal
  the  nonhospitalization order.

       The parties do not dispute the relevant facts.  Defendant Koch was
  arraigned in March  1997 on two misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct. 
  The district court ordered a forensic  evaluation of defendant at the state
  hospital in Waterbury to determine his competence to stand  trial and his
  sanity at the time of the offense.  See 13 V.S.A. §§ 4814, 4815.  After the 

 

  competency hearing, the parties stipulated that defendant was competent. 
  Nonetheless, based on  the report of the examining psychiatrist that
  defendant had likely been insane at the time of the  events charged by the
  information, the court ordered defendant's continued confinement at the 
  state hospital pending a hospitalization hearing.  See 13 V.S.A. § 4820(1).

       The court conducted the hospitalization hearing on April 22, 1997,
  pursuant to 13 V.S.A.  §§ 4821 and 4822.  Defendant did not request a
  closed hearing; it was conducted in open court  and covered by
  representatives of the news media.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the
  court  made oral findings on the record determining that defendant was in
  need of treatment as set out  in 18 V.S.A. § 7101 but deciding that
  defendant could receive treatment outside a hospital setting.  See 18
  V.S.A. § 7617.  The court subsequently issued a written order of
  nonhospitalization.

       On May 14, 1997, the State and the Commissioner of Mental Health
  joined in a motion  requesting the court to revoke its order of
  nonhospitalization and subject defendant to  hospitalization.  Petitioners
  based their request on defendant's alleged admission that he struck  a
  pedestrian with his car on May 9, 1997, in Stowe, Vermont, but could not
  explain how the  accident occurred.  The pedestrian died three days later
  from injuries sustained in the  accident.(FN1)  The motion for revocation
  alleged that the program of nonhospitalization  treatment as outlined in
  the court's order of April 22, 1997, had become inadequate to meet 
  defendant's need for treatment and that "[s]pecifically, Mr. Koch presents
  a danger to other  persons which is incompatible with his continued
  presence outside a hospitalized setting."

       At the May 16, 1997, hearing on the motion to revoke the order of
  nonhospitalization,  defendant requested that the court close the hearing
  to the public.  The court received written  requests from reporters for The
  Brattleboro Reformer and The Rutland Herald to attend the  proceedings. 
  The court, relying on 18 V.S.A. § 7615(e), ordered the hearing closed, and
  stated 

 

  its position that under the statute "the proposed patient [has] an absolute
  election to have  proceedings with respect to mental health commitments
  conducted in private."  On May 29, 1997,  the State and defendant filed a
  stipulation (later referred to by the court as a "consent decree") in 
  support of defendant's release from the state hospital and entry of a new
  order of  nonhospitalization.(FN2)  

       On June 2, 1997, the court held a hearing to consider the parties'
  consent decree.  Again,  this hearing was closed to the public.  The same
  day, the court issued an order pursuant to 18  V.S.A. § 7103(a) adopting
  the parties' proposed consent decree.  The order required that the full 
  contents of the consent decree, including the terms and conditions of
  nonhospitalization and  methods of enforcement, remain under seal.  

       Also on June 2, the court issued a written order in which it
  reconsidered the closure of the  revocation hearings but ultimately denied
  the appellants' motion seeking access to the hearings and 
  nonhospitalization order.  The court reasoned that "the  proceedings are
  cloaked in a general  presumption of confidentiality."  Notwithstanding its
  holding that hearings were closed absent a  waiver of confidentiality by
  the proposed patient, the court went on to analyze whether the public  and
  press had a qualified First Amendment right of access under the test set
  forth in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court,