Case Name: STATE ex rel. ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, LLC, Relator, v. The Honorable John F. GARVEY, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-12-20
Citations: 179 S.W.3d 899
Docket Number: No. SC 86952
Parties: STATE ex rel. ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, LLC, Relator, v. The Honorable John F. GARVEY, Respondent.
Judges: WOLFF, C.J., LAURA DENVER, STITH, PRICE, LIMBAUGH and RUSSELL, JJ., concur; RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J., concurs in separate opinion filed; WHITE, J., concurs in opinion of RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.; WHITE, J., concurs in separate opinion filed.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 179
Pages: 899–903

Head Matter:
STATE ex rel. ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, LLC, Relator, v. The Honorable John F. GARVEY, Respondent.
No. SC 86952.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
Dec. 20, 2005.
Joseph A. Martineau, Brandy B. Barth, Benjamin A. Lipman, St. Louis, for Relator.
Gerald R. Ortbals, Jane E. Dueker, John R. Phillips, St. Louis, for Intervenor.
Anthony J. Sestric, St. Louis, for Respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The issue in this case is whether the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, LLC, and Multimedia KSDK, Inc. Newsehannel 5 are entitled to a writ of prohibition preventing the Honorable John F. Garvey (respondent) from closing the proceedings in a juvenile case pursuant to section 211.171, RSMo Supp.2004. After an opinion by the Court of Appeals, Eastern District, this Court granted transfer. Mo. Const, art. V, sec. 10.
FACTS
Respondent is presiding over a juvenile case in which the juvenile is alleged to have committed acts that would be murder in the first degree if committed by an adult. The juvenile filed a motion to close the proceedings to the public. Respondent sustained the juvenile's motion over the objections of the Post-Dispatch and KSDK. The Post-Dispatch and KSDK filed a petition for a writ of prohibition.
The Post-Dispatch and KSDK argue that section 211.171.6 permits public access to all stages of juvenile cases in which the juvenile is alleged to have committed a class A or B felony. Respondent maintains that section 211.171.1, which sets forth the procedure to be followed "at the hearing," limits public access to the certification hearing in which it is determined whether the juvenile will be charged as an adult.
ANALYSIS
I. Standing
A writ of prohibition may be issued when a party raises an important constitutional issue and has no other adequate legal remedy to pursue the issue. State ex rel. Pulitzer, Inc. v. Autrey, 19 S.W.3d 710, 712 (Mo.App.2000). Although neither the Post-Dispatch nor KSDK are parties to the underlying juvenile case, each has standing to seek a writ because the right of access sought to be protected is one owing to the entire public, thus reducing the interest necessary to confer standing. See Pulitzer Publishing Co. v. Transit Casualty Co., 43 S.W.3d 293, 299 (Mo. banc 2001).
II. Section 211.171
In section 211.171.6, the General Assembly provided that the best interest of a juvenile charged with a crime is usually served by limiting public access to the proceedings. The statute provides that:
The general public shall be excluded and only such persons admitted as have a direct interest in the case or in the work of the court except in cases where the child is accused of conduct which, if committed by an adult, would be considered a class A or B felony; or for conduct which would be considered a class C felony, if the child has previously been formally adjudicated for the commission of two or more unrelated acts which would have been class A, B or C felonies, if committed by an adult. (Emphasis added).
Section 211.171.6 establishes a rule generally excluding the public from all juvenile proceedings, while specifically exempting from mandatory closure those cases in which the juvenile is accused of conduct that would be a class A or B felony. Although section 211.171.1 refers to the procedure to be followed "at the hearing," section 211.171.6 deals specifically with public access to the proceedings and contains no language limiting access to "the hearing" or the "certification hearing." Section 211.171.6 refers instead to "cases" in which the child is accused of conduct that would be a class A or B felony. The statute does not limit public access to a particular phase of the proceedings. It provides for access to the entire case.
CONCLUSION
The juvenile in this case is charged with conduct that, if committed by an adult, would constitute a class A felony. Consequently, the general rule requiring the exclusion of the public from juvenile proceedings is not applicable in this case.
A peremptory writ of prohibition shall issue directing the respondent to vacate his March 3, 2005, order sustaining the motion to close the hearings in the underlying cause and prohibiting him from closing any other hearings in said cause except as provided by law.
WOLFF, C.J., LAURA DENVER, STITH, PRICE, LIMBAUGH and RUSSELL, JJ., concur; RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J., concurs in separate opinion filed; WHITE, J., concurs in opinion of RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, J.; WHITE, J., concurs in separate opinion filed.