Court Opinion

ID: 9964731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 17:12:03.187535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.041497
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court

                                         No. 2022-302-C.A.
                                         (WJ 20-2497)

                                         (Dissent begins on Page 12)

 In re C.R.               :

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
Email:     opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov,      of     any
typographical or other formal errors in order that
corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
                                                       Supreme Court

                                                       No. 2022-302-C.A.
                                                       (WJ 20-2497)

                                                       (Dissent begins on Page 12)

              In re C.R.                :

    Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

                                  OPINION

      Justice Goldberg, for the Court. The genesis for this appeal arises from a

fatal motor-vehicle incident in which both the decedent and the driver—a juvenile—

were traveling in the same vehicle. As a result, a delinquency petition was filed in

the Family Court against the juvenile-driver, who later entered a plea of nolo

contendere to two charges of driving so as to endanger, resulting in death. See G.L.

1956 § 31-27-1. After the nolo contendere plea, the decedent’s parents, who were

present for the plea, filed a motion in the Family Court seeking access to the

transcript of the proceeding where the juvenile-driver was certified and sentenced.

The Family Court denied the motion and the decedent’s parents, although not parties

to the case, filed this appeal.

                                       -1-
      This case came before the Supreme Court on January 23, 2024, pursuant to an

order directing the parties and the decedent’s parents to show cause why the issues

raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After examining the

memoranda and arguments presented, we conclude that cause has not been shown

and proceed to decide the appeal at this time. For the reasons set forth in this opinion,

we affirm the order of the Family Court.

                               Factual Background

      On or about August 9, 2020, Jackson Panus (Panus) was a passenger in a

motor vehicle driven by C.R. As a result of a motor-vehicle collision, Panus

tragically perished. At the time, C.R. was sixteen years old, and in due course, a

delinquency petition was filed in Family Court against C.R. alleging five charges

stemming from the fatal motor-vehicle incident. Pursuant to the nolo contendere

plea, C.R. was adjudicated to be delinquent with respect to two charges of driving

so as to endanger, resulting in death. See § 31-27-1. The remaining three charges

were dismissed. On September 28, 2021, the Family Court trial justice assigned to

the delinquency petition (trial justice) certified C.R. pursuant to G.L. 1956

                                          -2-
§§ 14-1-7.2 and 14-1-7.3(a),1 and sentenced C.R. In accordance with § 14-1-30,2

the September 28, 2021 proceeding was closed to the public, but Panus’s parents,

Stephen and Kellie Panus (the movants), as well as their legal counsel, were

1
    General Laws 1956 § 14-1-7.3(a) provides, in pertinent part, that:

              “Upon a finding by the court that the child is subject to
              certification pursuant to § 14-1-7.2, the court shall afford
              the child a right to a jury trial, and upon conviction for the
              offense charged, the court shall sentence the child in
              accordance with one of the following alternatives:

                    “(1) Impose a sentence upon the child to the
                    training school for youth until the time that
                    the child attains the age of nineteen (19)
                    years;

                    “(2) Impose a sentence upon the child for a
                    period in excess of the child’s nineteenth
                    birthday to the adult correctional institutions,
                    with the period of the child’s minority to be
                    served in the training school for youth in a
                    facility to be designated by the court.
                    However, the sentence shall not exceed the
                    maximum sentence provided for by statute
                    for conviction of the offense.”

2
    Section 14-1-30 provides:

              “In the hearing of any case, the general public shall be
              excluded; only an attorney or attorneys, selected by the
              parents or guardian of a child to represent the child, may
              attend, and only those other persons shall be admitted who
              have a direct interest in the case, and as the justice may
              direct. All cases involving children shall be heard
              separately and apart from the trial of cases against adults.”
                                          -3-
permitted to attend. The proceedings were transcribed (September 28, 2021

transcript).

      According to the movants, following the September 28, 2021 proceeding, and

in anticipation of filing a civil action against C.R., counsel for the movants requested

the September 28, 2021 transcript from the stenographer. The movants aver that the

stenographer directed counsel to the trial justice and the trial justice instructed

counsel to file a motion seeking access to the September 28, 2021 transcript

(motion). The movants indicate that several days later, on October 1, 2021, they

filed the motion. As noted, the motion was filed in the delinquency petition case to

which the movants were not parties. On October 8, 2021, Stephen Panus, in his

individual capacity and in his capacity as Administrator of the Estate of Jackson

Panus, and Kellie Panus, in her individual capacity, filed a civil action in Providence

County Superior Court against C.R. and her parent. The civil action sought damages

as a result of Panus’s death.

      On or about August 5, 2022, the motion was heard by the Chief Judge of the

Family Court (Chief Judge). No transcript has been provided for the August 5, 2022

hearing and we are advised that no record of this proceeding exists for this Court to

review. The movants subsequently filed a post-hearing memorandum in support of

their position.

                                         -4-
      On September 14, 2022, in a written decision, the Chief Judge denied the

motion. In so doing, the Chief Judge considered § 14-1-66, as well as Matter of

Falstaff Brewing Corporation Re: Narragansett Brewery Fire, 637 A.2d 1047 (R.I.

1994), and noted that both the statute and our precedent imposed a “good cause”

standard. Thereafter, the Chief Judge observed that:

             “[T]he movants state that ‘the request for the transcript in
             this case is made specifically and solely for the purpose of
             aiding in the prosecution of the civil action currently
             pending against the juvenile and her parent to recover for
             damages sustained as a result of the crime.’ * * * However,
             movants make no showing of how, without the transcript,
             they would not be able to seek restitution for their
             damages. Indeed, the movants and their attorneys were
             present during the proceedings for which they request a
             transcript. Although a transcript under oath may be a
             useful tool on cross-examination, the transcript in question
             simply is not a sin[e] qu[a] non for movants to obtain
             relief.”

After considering the purpose supporting the confidentiality of juvenile

proceedings, the Chief Judge concluded that “[o]n balance, the interests of the state

in protecting the confidentiality of juvenile justice proceedings outweigh the

interests of the movants.” Accordingly, the Chief Judge determined that “[g]ood

cause has not been shown” and denied the motion. The movants filed an appeal.

We affirm.

                                        -5-
                                       Analysis

      As a threshold matter, we express some doubt concerning whether the

movants had standing to file the motion ab initio and whether this appeal is properly

before this Court. The movants were not parties to the delinquency petition and

sought neither to intervene nor to file a separate civil action seeking access to the

September 28, 2021 transcript. Further complicating the issue of justiciability, we

have before us an appeal from the Chief Judge’s order denying the motion. But see

Falstaff Brewing Corporation, 637 A.2d at 1048-49 (reviewing order granting

motion to obtain juvenile police records sought pursuant to § 14-1-66 through

petition for a writ of certiorari). These issues were raised for the first time after the

prebriefing conference and addressed in supplemental memoranda.

      After careful review, we elect to bypass these procedural issues because “an

alternative substantive ruling provides a simpler and more direct resolution of an

appeal.” Sinapi v. Rhode Island Board of Bar Examiners, 910 F.3d 544, 550 (1st Cir.

2018). This approach is “particularly appropriate in cases like this one where the

merits issues are ‘foreordained’ and ‘do not create new precedent,’” and where “the

outcome is the same either way.” Id. (brackets omitted). Accordingly, we proceed

to the merits.

      This Court has recognized that “[t]he principle of an open trial has as its goals

the protection of a defendant against possible prosecutorial or judicial abuse.”

                                          -6-
Edward A. Sherman Publishing Company v. Goldberg, 443 A.2d 1252, 1258 (R.I.

1982). “The interests of the juvenile, however, are most often best served by

anonymity and confidentiality.” Id. Indeed, “[t]he overarching purpose of the

statutory scheme relating to juvenile justice is to rehabilitate miscreants who have

not reached the age of majority.” In re Harrison, 992 A.2d 990, 994 (R.I. 2010). In

so doing, we have explained that “[t]he policy of confidentiality that protects

juveniles from future ‘civil disabilities’ and from the social and economic

stigmatization that accompany criminal convictions is concededly an important part

of the juvenile justice system.” Falstaff Brewing Corporation, 637 A.2d at 1051; see

also In re Richard A., 946 A.2d 204, 210 (R.I. 2008) (“The primary goals of the

juvenile-justice system are protection, rehabilitation, and treatment of the offender,

whereas the criminal system seeks to punish the offender.”). We deem this

protection critical, particularly in the world of social media. With these competing

interests in mind, the General Assembly enacted § 14-1-66.

      Section 14-1-66 provides, in relevant part:

             “Upon written motion by the victim of a crime or his or
             her attorney, the family court may, in its discretion, and
             upon good cause shown, divulge the name and address of
             the juvenile accused of committing the crime solely for the
             purpose of allowing the victim to commence a civil action
             against the juvenile and/or his or her parents to recover for
             damages sustained as a result of the crime[.]” (Emphasis
             added.)

                                         -7-
      In Falstaff, after two juveniles had been arrested and charged with multiple

counts for their involvement in a fire at the former Narragansett Brewery complex,

the Falstaff Brewing Corporation obtained the release of the two juveniles’ names

pursuant to § 14-1-66. See Falstaff Brewing Corporation, 637 A.2d at 1048. After

obtaining their names, Falstaff filed a civil action in Superior Court against the

juveniles and their parents, claiming damages as a result of the fire. Id. at 1048-49.

Thereafter, Falstaff served a subpoena duces tecum upon the Cranston police

department seeking the police records relating to the arrest and charges against the

minors. Id. at 1049. The Superior Court quashed the subpoena duces tecum and

granted the petitioners’ motion for a protective order, “‘without prejudice to any

right that Falstaff may have to petition the Rhode Island Family Court for access to’

the records.” Id. (brackets omitted). Falstaff then filed a motion in the Family Court

seeking access to the police records, which was granted. Id. This Court issued a writ

of certiorari. Id.

      We observed that “[o]ur review by writ of certiorari is limited to examining

the record to determine if an error of law has been committed.” Falstaff Brewing

Corporation, 637 A.2d at 1049. Thus, we stressed that “[t]he sole issue on appeal is

a question of law: Does § 14-1-66 authorize the release of a juvenile’s police records

to the victim of a crime?” Id. Although the plain language of § 14-1-66 limited

disclosure to “the name and address of the juvenile accused of committing the

                                        -8-
crime,” this Court nonetheless declared that it was “unreasonable to conclude that

the General Assembly intended to allow victims to bring actions to recover damages

but then denied them the tools for obtaining that relief.” Id. at 1050. With respect to

the issue presented before this Court, our conclusion in Falstaff is particularly

enlightening:

             “We are of the opinion that the legislative intent to allow
             victims, pursuant to § 14-1-66, to pursue civil actions
             against juveniles is clear and cannot be ignored. Where
             the Family Court, in exercise of its discretion, determines
             as it did in the case before us that good cause has been
             shown to warrant release of a juvenile’s name to a victim
             for purposes of seeking restitution, we find
             that § 14-1-66 also authorizes the review of the juvenile’s
             police record by the victim, though not by the general
             public, as it pertains to the act alleged to have caused
             damage to the victim.” Id. at 1052 (emphasis added).

The movants suggest that our decision in Falstaff to allow the release of police

records pursuant to § 14-1-66 should be applied in this case to require the release of

the September 28, 2021 transcript.

      This Court need not reach the issue presented by the movants because the

record is clear that the threshold requirement recognized in Falstaff has not been

satisfied. Although in Falstaff we concluded that the police records relating to the

juvenile offenders should be disclosed to the Falstaff Brewing Corporation, our

conclusion was expressly premised upon a showing of “good cause” as determined

by a justice of the Family Court in the exercise of statutorily vested discretion. See

                                         -9-
Falstaff Brewing Corporation, 637 A.2d at 1052. We explained that: “Where the

Family Court, in exercise of its discretion, determines * * * that good cause has been

shown to warrant release of a juvenile’s name to a victim for purposes of seeking

restitution, we find that § 14-1-66 also authorizes the review of the juvenile’s police

record by the victim * * * as it pertains to the act alleged to have caused damage to

the victim.” Id. (emphasis added).

      Here, after considering the movants’ arguments, the Chief Judge concluded

that “[g]ood cause has not been shown.” He further observed that the movants

requested the September 28, 2021 transcript “specifically and solely for the purpose

of aiding in the prosecution of the civil action currently pending against the juvenile

and her parent to recover for damages sustained as a result of the crime.” Despite

the movants’ asserted purpose, the Chief Judge concluded that the movants made

“no showing of how, without the transcript, they would not be able to seek restitution

for their damages.”

      Unlike Falstaff, in which the reports at issue concerned the details of the

police department’s investigation that presumably were unknown to the victim, in

this case it is undisputed that the movants and their legal counsel were present for

the September 28, 2021 proceeding. Our review, likewise, finds a dearth of evidence

or argument supporting a “good cause” determination that was presented to the Chief

Judge. Additionally, we are advised that in conjunction with the civil action, C.R.

                                        - 10 -
was deposed for multiple hours, during which C.R. was likely questioned (or could

have been questioned) concerning the events that took place during the plea

proceeding.3 Although “[i]t is unreasonable to conclude that the General Assembly

intended to allow victims to bring actions to recover damages but then denied them

the tools for obtaining that relief,” Falstaff Brewing Corporation, 637 A.2d at 1050,

the movants before us failed to meet the standard for production of confidential

juvenile records of Family Court proceedings.

      While the movants submitted at oral argument that the September 28, 2021

transcript might prove helpful in the event that the civil action proceeds to trial and

in the event that C.R. testifies in a manner inconsistent with the September 28, 2021

proceeding, this attempt at demonstrating “good cause” can only be described as

speculative, particularly considering C.R.’s lengthy deposition. Moreover, this

argument was rejected by the Chief Judge. We also pause to note that no claim has

been made to this Court that C.R. provided deposition testimony that was

inconsistent with the September 28, 2021 proceeding.

      We disagree with the dissent’s opinion that good cause for the production of

the transcript has been shown in what is certainly a tragic and emotional matter for

3
 It is also our understanding that the civil action had been assigned to the Providence
County Superior Court trial calendar, and in so doing, the plaintiffs in that matter,
through their legal counsel, represented that discovery was substantially complete
and that they were ready to proceed to trial.
                                        - 11 -
those involved. However, our role is not to substitute our opinion for the judgment

of the Chief Judge, but rather to determine whether the Chief Judge abused his

discretion in denying the motion. On the record before us, the Chief Judge exercised

the statutory discretion vested in the justices of the Family Court pursuant to

§ 14-1-66 and concluded that “[g]ood cause has not been shown.” We perceive no

abuse of discretion with this determination, nor are we aware of any legal authority

to support the dissent’s waiver argument, which would render § 14-1-66 nugatory.

                                     Conclusion

      For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the Family Court’s order. The

papers in this case are remanded to the Family Court.

      Justice Robinson, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. In my view, the

movants (viz., Stephen and Kellie Panus, the parents of the young man who died in

the tragic August 2020 collision in which the motor vehicle driven by C.R. was

involved) clearly satisfied the “good cause” standard that is the controlling standard

with respect to this rather unusual case. I need not go on at great length to explain

my rather strong opinion that, given the provisions of the pertinent statute (G.L. 1956

§ 14-1-66) and especially given this Court’s long-standing precedent construing that

                                        - 12 -
statute,1 the movants very definitely satisfied the “good cause” standard 2 and were

entitled to be provided with a transcript of the sentencing proceeding that was held

in the Family Court on September 28, 2021 with respect to C.R.

      It is undisputed that the movants and their attorney were permitted to attend

and did in fact attend that sentencing proceeding, which was transcribed by a court

reporter. Moreover, no court order has ever prohibited the movants or their attorney

from revealing what transpired during that proceeding (and there is no indication

whatsoever that they have ever done so). Quite frankly and with all due respect, I

simply cannot agree with the Chief Judge’s conclusion that “[o]n balance, the

interests of the state in protecting the confidentiality of juvenile justice proceedings

outweigh the interests of the movants.” In my judgment, the confidentiality of the

sentencing proceeding for C.R. was waived pro tanto by the fact that the movants

and their attorney were permitted to attend that proceeding. Since they are not

subject to any sort of prior restraint or “gag order,” they would be completely free

to testify to the best of their recollection at the eventual civil trial about the

1
      The most directly relevant precedent is, of course, this Court’s unanimous
opinion in Matter of Falstaff Brewing Corporation Re: Narragansett Brewery Fire,
637 A.2d 1047 (R.I. 1994).
2
      I unhesitatingly agree with the majority that “good cause” should be the
operative standard with respect to the instant case. See Falstaff Brewing
Corporation, 637 A.2d at 1052.

                                        - 13 -
statements that C.R. made under oath at the sentencing proceeding if she were to

testify at trial to a material fact in a manner that differed significantly from her

testimony at the sentencing proceeding.3 But how much more potent in that

eventuality would be an official transcript stating in plain English exactly what C.R.

had testified to at the sentencing proceeding.

      For that reason, I am perplexed by the following sentence from the Chief

Judge’s decision (a sentence that is also quoted in the majority opinion):

             “Although a transcript under oath may be a useful tool on
             cross-examination, the transcript in question simply is not
             a [sine qua non4] for movants to obtain relief.”

In my judgment, allowing plaintiffs in the tragic underlying civil case to have access

to such a “useful tool” quite definitely constitutes good cause.

      While having the transcript may not constitute a sine qua non for plaintiffs in

the underlying civil case, the fact that it “may be a useful tool” seems to me to clearly

3
       There is no reason to believe that the transcript would be used for any purpose
other than cross-examination in the civil trial if (and only if) that became necessary.
Indeed, the Chief Judge specifically noted in his decision that “the movants state that
the request for the transcript in this case is made specifically and solely for the
purpose of aiding in the prosecution of the civil action currently pending against the
juvenile and her parent to recover for damages sustained as a result of the crime
* * *.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
4
      This Latin expression is spelled differently in the record. I have chosen to use
the spelling used in Black’s Law Dictionary. Black’s Law Dictionary 1665 (11th ed.
2019).

                                         - 14 -
constitute “good cause” in accordance with the statute and under Matter of Falstaff

Brewing Corporation Re: Narragansett Brewery Fire, 637 A.2d 1047 (R.I. 1994).

It is a useful tool that any wise litigator would want to have in his or her toolbox in

case it should be needed. To employ a rough analogy and with no intention of

trivializing the importance of the issue before us, a major league baseball manager

might hope that the starting pitcher would “go the distance,” but that same manager

would surely be pleased to know that a tried and true relief pitcher was in the bullpen,

ready to be called upon if necessary. I consider the transcript at issue to be of similar

potential usefulness.

      I acknowledge that the decision as to whether there is “good cause” justifying

the release of the transcript to the movants is discretionary in nature. However, as

this Court has noted on multiple occasions, the discretion that is accorded to the nisi

prius court as to many matters is not unbridled in nature. See, e.g., State v. Coelho,

454 A.2d 241, 246 (R.I. 1982); Hartman v. Carter, 121 R.I. 1, 5, 393 A.2d 1102,

1105 (1978). While I have genuine respect for my colleagues on this Court and for

the Chief Judge who decided that the transcript should not be provided to the

movants in this case, I am unable to agree with their judgment in this matter. I have

long been influenced by the often-quoted observation of the late Justice Thomas

Kelleher to the effect that “[t]he term ‘discretion’ imports action taken in the light

of reason as applied to all the facts and with a view to the rights of all the parties to

                                         - 15 -
the action while having regard for what is right and equitable under the

circumstances and the law.” Hartman, 121 R.I. at 5, 393 A.2d at 1105. In my

considered judgment, providing the transcript at issue to the movants in this case

pursuant to the agreed-upon conditions would be “right and equitable under the

circumstances and the law.” Id.

      For these reasons, I very respectfully dissent.

                                      - 16 -
                                         STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
                                     SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
                                           Licht Judicial Complex
                                             250 Benefit Street
                                           Providence, RI 02903

                                 OPINION COVER SHEET

Title of Case                        In re C.R.

                                     No. 2022-302-C.A.
Case Number
                                     (WJ 20-2497)

Date Opinion Filed                   April 30, 2024

                                     Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
                                     Long, JJ.

Written By                           Associate Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg

Source of Appeal                     Newport County Family Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court    Chief Judge Michael B. Forte

                                     For Appellants:

                                     Anthony M. Traini, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal
                                     For Appellee:

                                     William J. Murphy, Esq.

SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)