State v. Anthony Gotavaskas / State v. Grant S. Bercik, 134 A.3d 536

Background

Two defendants (Gotavaskas and Bercik) underwent court-ordered competency evaluations; trial courts received the evaluators’ reports under seal and made findings of incompetency (stipulated or agreed).
The State sought admission of entire competency reports; defendants sought redaction limiting disclosure to portions relevant to competency. Trial courts admitted only unredacted portions and redacted other material without making case-specific findings justifying redaction.
The courts relied on 13 V.S.A. § 4816(e) (requiring admission of the relevant portion of competency reports) and the Rules for Public Access to Court Records (P.A.C.R.) which generally permit public access unless records are sealed or exempt.
The State appealed, asserting the trial courts applied an improper standard of relevance and that redaction without case-specific findings undermined public access.
The Supreme Court considered (1) whether the State had standing to raise public access claims, (2) whether appeals were moot, and (3) the proper relevance standard and sealing/redaction procedure for competency reports.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to appeal on public-access grounds	State: prosecutor may represent public interest and has standing to object to evidentiary rulings that affect public access	Defendants: no third party public intervenor; issue is internal evidentiary ruling	Court: State has standing here because prosecutor is the only party in position to defend public access in competency proceedings
Mootness of appeals	State: appeals are not moot because competency findings were based on sealed documents and issues are capable of repetition and may evade review	Defendants: competency findings make appeals moot	Court: appeals are not moot; also meets ‘‘capable of repetition yet evading review’’ exception if mootness were argued
Proper relevance standard for admission of competency reports	State: “relevant” in § 4816(e) should be interpreted by reference to V.R.E. 401 (the usual relevancy test)	Defendants: narrower relevance should apply to protect privacy; trial courts may limit admission of non-pertinent personal material	Court: § 4816(e) requires application of V.R.E. 401; trial courts must apply the usual relevancy analysis when determining what portions are admitted
Redaction/sealing standard and need for findings	State: redactions must be supported by case-specific findings under P.A.C.R. 7(a) to overcome public access	Defendants: trial courts have discretion to redact portions to protect privacy; existing balancing statements were sufficient	Court: remanded — trial courts must apply V.R.E. 401 and, if redaction/sealing is sought, make the specific “good cause” and “exceptional circumstances” findings required by P.A.C.R. 7(a)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Koch, 169 Vt. 109, 730 A.2d 577 (1999) (public interest in access to information supporting judicial decisions)
State v. Tallman, 148 Vt. 465, 537 A.2d 422 (1987) (presumption of public access extends even to pretrial criminal proceedings)
State v. Whitney, 178 Vt. 435, 885 A.2d 1200 (2005) (competency report relied on by court should be publicly accessible despite technical non-admission)
State v. Oakes, 129 Vt. 241, 276 A.2d 18 (1971) (trial court discretion in admitting competency-related testimony; broad evidentiary discretion)
State v. Lockwood, 160 Vt. 547, 632 A.2d 655 (1993) (competency is fluid; courts must remain alert to changed circumstances)
Price v. Town of Fairlee, 190 Vt. 66, 26 A.3d 26 (2011) (mootness exception analysis for actions capable of repetition yet evading review)
Paige v. State, 195 Vt. 302, 88 A.3d 1182 (2013) (mootness and collateral consequence exceptions)
In re P.S., 167 Vt. 63, 702 A.2d 98 (1997) (collateral consequences in mental health commitment cases can justify review)
In re Collette, 185 Vt. 210, 969 A.2d 101 (2008) (scope of mootness exceptions)
In re S.N., 181 Vt. 641, 928 A.2d 510 (2007) (declining public interest exception where circumstances were insufficient)
State v. Desautels, 180 Vt. 189, 908 A.2d 463 (2006) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion requiring prejudice)
State v. Little, 167 Vt. 577, 705 A.2d 177 (1997) (trial court latitude on admission/exclusion of evidence)
State v. Russell, 189 Vt. 632, 22 A.3d 455 (2011) (discretion abused only when exercised on untenable grounds)
State v. Lumumba, 197 Vt. 315, 104 A.3d 627 (2014) (reinforcing abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Guerrero, 698 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (recognizing privacy interests in competency reports and endorsing redaction/protective orders as alternatives)