In the Interest of J.B.
39 A.3d 421
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- J.B., a juvenile, was decertified from a homicide case to juvenile court after initial criminal proceedings.
- The juvenile court held adjudicatory proceedings with restricted public access to protect privacy.
- News Media petitioned to intervene and to open the juvenile proceedings; the court denied.
- Appellants appealed: PG Publishing, Trib Total Media, and Newspaper Holdings challenged access and intervention rulings.
- The Superior Court analyzed open-access rights under constitutional and common-law frameworks and affirmed the trial court’s denial of access.
- The court concluded there is a compelling governmental interest in protecting juvenile privacy and no less-restrictive means to achieve it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether In re M.B. created a bright-line distinction for media access | PG Publishing argues for a bright-line distinction between dependency and delinquency access. | The News Media contends no such bright-line distinction exists. | No bright-line distinction; privacy interests apply similarly. |
| Whether total closure is proper for a delinquency hearing when media seeks access | PG Publishing contends less restrictive access is possible. | Court found compelling interest in privacy justifies closure. | Total closure upheld; no less restrictive means identified. |
| Whether media may participate as a party with a proper interest | News Media seeks intervention based on a proper-interest theory. | Intervention not warranted given closed proceedings and lack of open-access need. | No error in denying intervention; no merit to open-access claim. |
| Constitutionality of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6336 | Trib Total Media challenges the statute as unconstitutional as applied. | Statute permits court discretion to admit reporters and is constitutional. | Statute upheld; no constitutional violation found. |
| Whether good cause supports common-law closure | Newspaper Holdings argues privacy concerns do not warrant closure. | Closure prevents anticipated, identifiable harm to J.B.’s privacy. | Good cause shown; closure sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re M.B., 819 A.2d 59 (Pa. Super. 2003) (presumption of openness; compelling interest and least restrictive means required for closure)
- Storms v. O’Malley, 779 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super. 2001) (open proceedings in juvenile matters; balancing tests)
- Commonwealth v. Contakos, 453 A.2d 578 (Pa. 1983) (criminal context openness principles applicable)
- In re C.M.T., 861 A.2d 348 (Pa. Super. 2004) (rehabilitation focus; privacy considerations in juveniles)
- Commonwealth v. Henig, 189 A.2d 894 (Pa. Super. 1963) (juvenile proceedings are civil inquiries focused on rehabilitation)
- In the Interest of M.B., 819 A.2d 59 (Pa. Super. 2003) (two-pronged analysis for closure: constitutional and common law)
- R.W. v. Hampe, 626 A.2d 1218 (Pa. Superior Ct. 1993) (good cause standard for closing judicial proceedings)
- In the Interest of T.E.H., 928 A.2d 318 (Pa. Super. 2007) (privacy rights in juvenile proceedings)