Court Opinion

ID: 9604773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:26:37.67664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:23.800409
License: Public Domain

Neely, Justice,

dissenting:

I dissent to the majority opinion in this case because the result is absurd. W. Va. Code, 49-5-17 [1978] or 49-7-1 [1978] are silent with regard to the confidentiality of the records of a dead child. It appears quite obvious that the intention of the Legislature was to protect the living, and while there may be a valid policy reason for not releasing the records of a dead juvenile to satisfy idle curiosity, once the rights of the living are at stake, those rights must take precedence over the right of a dead child to be protected in his reputation.
In the cases of McGraw v. Review Board, 165 W.Va. 704, 264 S.E.2d 168 (1980) and McGraw v. Review Board, 165 W.Va. 704, 271 S.E.2d 344 (1980), this Court has held that the confidentiality of judicial disciplinary proceedings must yield to a defendant’s right to a fair trial, confrontation of witnesses, and general due process. The facts of the case before us now demonstrate that the tragic death of the child in question generated a heated public controversy which cast serious aspersions upon the reputation of living persons; those persons have a right to vindicate their reputations, and since they were public officials holding elected offices this right almost has significant elements of a property right.