Opinion ID: 1427176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts and challenged order

Text: Three defendants were charged with aggravated kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and aggravated exploitation of prostitution against two females, one age 17. The defense and the prosecution joined in a motion to close the preliminary hearing to the public. Respondent Lewis, a judge of the circuit court, held a hearing on that motion on November 23, 1983, the day scheduled for the preliminary hearing. Petitioner, the publisher of a daily newspaper, had been notified of the hearing and was represented there by counsel. The proponents of closure relied on Utah Code of Criminal Procedure, Rule 7(d)(2), U.C.A., 1953, § 77-35-7(d)(2), which provides that on the request of either party at a preliminary examination the magistrate may order all spectators to be excluded from the courtroom. The prosecution and the defense urged closure to assure that defendants could have a fair trial before a jury whose impartiality had not been jeopardized by pretrial publicity in a high profile case. The prosecutor also referred in passing to an interest in the privacy and the well being of the victims. In opposing closure, petitioner relied on the press's constitutional rights, as the surrogate of the public, to be present and observe the workings of the judicial branch of the government. While conceding that such hearings could be closed as a last resort, petitioner maintained that this could only be done where the circumstances met a three-pronged test, mentioned below (Part IVA). No evidence was proffered or received at the hearing. There were no representations that any evidence to be presented at the preliminary hearing would be subject to a motion to suppress or would otherwise be inadmissible at trial. At the conclusion of arguments on the motion, the court stated that she would not close the courtroom if this were a trial, but this was only a preliminary hearing. The court then concluded: The nature of the offense, as well as balancing the interest of the victims and the defendants, who are merely charged at this juncture, persuades this Court that this courtroom should be closed, and that will be the order of the Court. No other findings or conclusions were indicated at this time. The court then denied petitioner's motion to stay the preliminary hearing while it appealed the order of closure. The judge cleared the courtroom and went forward with the preliminary hearing. The 17-year-old victim testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the defendants were bound over to the district court. Petitioner immediately came to this Court with a complaint and petition for an extraordinary writ, seeking to vacate the order of closure and to stay the preliminary hearing pending decision. We denied the stay on November 23, but called for briefs on the merits, together with the record (including the findings of the court). The circuit court signed formal findings of fact on December 5, but through clerical oversight they were not filed of record until January 20, 1984, two weeks after petitioner's brief was filed.