749 S.E.2d 313
Va.2013Background
- VBC sought to broadcast Huguely's sentencing after his February 2012 murder conviction of Yeardley Love.
- Huguely and Love were University of Virginia students; sentencing was scheduled for August 30, 2012.
- Trial court previously denied camera access during Huguely's trial.
- At a July 25, 2012 hearing, the court denied VBC's request citing concerns about witnesses, jurors, and a pending civil suit against Huguely.
- VBC argued First Amendment equality of news gathering and lack of good cause; the Commonwealth and Huguely opposed—citing potential prejudice and interference with witnesses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial denial of cameras required a good-cause showing under §19.2-266. | VBC—good cause is required and the court cannot rely on speculation. | Commonwealth/Huguely—initial decision to permit or deny coverage rests solely within the trial court's discretion. | No; initial denial is discretionary and not bound to a good-cause standard. |
| Whether the trial court’s ruling should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. | VBC—court abused its discretion by denying without sufficient basis. | Court acted within its discretion given concerns about witnesses and civil action. | Yes; review is deferential but the denial was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the case is moot and must be dismissed. | N/A (addressed by court) | Not moot given potential for repetition. | Not moot; exception to mootness applies because coverage could recur and be millstone for review. |
| What meaning the legislative history gives to §19.2-266 regarding discretion to permit coverage. | Statutory text ambiguous; good-cause analysis applies. | Statute grants sole discretion to trial courts; history confirms discretion and guidelines follow only after permitting coverage. | Statute grants sole discretion to initial decision; no requirement to show good cause before permitting coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 285 Va. 447 (2013) (mootness and review context for media coverage)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (repetition and timing of proceedings; public access rights)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (witness testimony and chilling effect of broadcast)
- Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 (1965) (cameras in court can chill witnesses)
- Diehl v. Commonwealth, 9 Va. App. 191 (1989) (precedent on good cause after initial permission to cover)
- Novak v. Commonwealth, 20 Va. App. 373 (1995) (predecessor reasoning on good-cause standard)
- Rives v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 1 (2012) (statutory interpretation and discretion themes)
- Kiser v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 285 Va. 12 (2013) (statutory interpretation—wording controls)
- Osman v. Osman, 285 Va. 384 (2013) (de novo review standard for statutory interpretation)