Court Opinion

ID: 9767489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:20:28.069353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:31.438803
License: Public Domain

LEIBSON, Justice,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
The constitutionality of the new juvenile transfer statute, KRS 640.010, is a matter *447of public importance, and the public and news media should have access to the appellate court proceedings regarding same except to the extent necessary to protect the juvenile as contemplated by KRS 610.-070 and KRS 610.340. These confidentiality limitations should be understood in the context of KRS 600.020(12), which limits the term “court” as used in these statutes to the “juvenile session of district court.”
Because this juvenile’s case is still pending in the juvenile session of the district court, F.T.P. is entitled to the statutory protection in KRS 610.070 and KRS 610.-340, but limited to the factual material pertaining to the juvenile in the record and evidence developed in Juvenile Court. To the extent this factual material is referred to or discussed in the circuit court appeal, confidentiality should be afforded. Beyond that point statutory confidentiality is not afforded, and should not be provided.
My interpretation of the decision of the Court of Appeals is that it is consistent with the position thus stated. Therefore, I would affirm the Court of Appeals.
WINTERSHEIMER, J., joins.