World Publishing Co. v. White

ASSUMED; JURISDICTION ORIGINAL DENIED.

WRIT V.C.J., WATT, HARGRAVE, C.J., OPALA, KAUGER,

HODGES, JJ.,

WINCHESTER, concur. BOUDREAU, LAVENDER,

SUMMERS, JJ., dissent. COMPANY, an

WORLD PUBLISHING Petitioner, corporation, WHITE, April

The Honorable Sellers

Judge District Court of Creek District, Respon-

County, 24th Judicial

dent, Rotramel, Individual, Wayne

Robert Party in Interest.

Real 95,518.

No.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma. 12, 2001.

June 4, 2001.

As Corrected Oct. Olderbak,

Richard D. Attorney Assistant General, OK, City, Respon- dent, Office of Juvenile Affairs. Hudson, Perry OK, Sapulpa, W. Craig Sut- ter, Norman, OK, Interest, Party for Real Wayne Robert Rotramel. J.;

KAUGER, Titus, Tulsa, OK, Petitioner, J Schaad presented 11 Two issues1 are Publishing Company. World 1) original action: whether Kirk, Clyde Attorney General, E. Assistant court and law enforcement records of indi Watkins, Attorney Brandon D. charged Assistant viduals with the crimes enumerated General, Supp.1997 $ OK, in 10 open City, Respon- 7306-1.1 3are Oklahoma dent, April Honorable pursuant Sellers White. Supp.1999 to 10 O.S. we Publishing subject Because determine that World proceeding pursuant of a court to requested entitled to the records under 10 O.S. the Oklahoma Juvenile Code ... 7307-1.2(C)(2), infra, see note Supp.1999 'Law enforcement records' means con- constitutionally we need not tact, address its based records, reports, incident or similar arrest However, arguments for access. records, First records, disposition finger- detention guarantee Amendment does not a presumption photographs or related to a child and prints, openness juvenile proceedings and access to and reports shall include but not be limited to generated pursuant the records thereto. United investigations inquiries or conducted a law Juveniles, 651, 656, F.Supp. States v. Three agency enforcement to determine whether a aff'd, (1st Cir.1995), denied, 61 F.3d 86 cert. subject child provisions is or U.S. 116 S.Ct. 134 L.Ed.2d 664 chapter delinquent this as a child or a child in an ban supervision. Nevertheless, need of Law enforcement records across-the—board juvenile proceedings poses on access to a sub pertaining juveniles sep- to shall be maintained stantial constitutional See, issue. Globe Newspa pertaining from records to ..." arately adults Court, per Superior Co. v. 457 U.S. 102 S.Ct. 2613, 2620-21, (1982) 73 L.Ed.2d 248 [Closure 3. Title 10 0.8. 7306-1.1 justified to media cannot be on basis of state's pertinent part: protecting interest in minor victims of sex crimes attempts encourage or victims to come for Any (16) person "A. sixteen or seventeen testify proceedings.]; ward to in such United (17) age charged who is with years murder, A.D., (3rd Cir.1994). States v. 28 F.3d kidnapping, robbery dangerous weap- with a on, this cause does not an issue of robbery degree personal in the first if present in- prior Publishing restraint. Oklahoma v.Co. results, jury rape degree, rape by in the first County, District Court in & Oklahoma instrumentation, use of a firearm or other of- 1045, 1047, U.S. 97 S.Ct. 51 L.Ed.2d 355 weapon fensive committing felony, while a ar- (1977) picture [Once name and were degree, burglary son in the first explo- with through press's pro obtained attendance at court sives, burglary degree in the first or second ceeding, any prior press prohibit restraint on the adjudications after three or more for commit- ing publication picture of name and ting burglary degree either in the first or bur- unconstitutional.]; George found W. Prescott Pub glary degree, shooting in the second with in- lishing Stoughton Co. v. Div. the District Court kill, firearm, discharging tent a crossbow the Trial Court, 428 Mass. 309, 701 Dept. of weapon pursuant or other from a vehicle (1998) N.E.2d [Once attended press B subsection of Section 652 of Title hearings concerning provision adult of alcohol to intimidating Statutes, a witness, minors, barring press juvenile pro related from manslaughter degree, sodomy, in the first traf- ceedings constituted prior unconstitutional re ficking illegal drugs, manufacturing, dis- straint.]. tributing, dispensing, possessing with in- tent to manufacture, distribute, dispense 7307-1.1(B) Title 10 O.S. pro- substance, dangerous controlled or assault pertinent part: vides in battery deadly weapon, and with a shall be "... As used considered in the Oklahoma as an adult. Juvenile Code: (13), Any person (14), ... legal 2. Juvenile B. court record' means and thirteen fourteen records, (15), (16), adoption social records other than fifteen sixteen or seventeen including agency, charged but not limited to law en- who is with murder in the degree first shall be considered forcement and as district records, filed attorney's with the court that are related to a child who is adult...." from an incident in 2) charges arose whether, omy. The 7307-1.2(0)(2); under and kidnapped seven allegedly Rotramel charged with which adult presented-an the facts into an girls, forced them year old murder, and twelve rape sexual molestation and home, year strangled the seven females, to release abandoned the refusal two minor raped and sodom- keep quiet and her law enforce old and court Rotramel's year the twelve old. use of ized an unauthorized was ment the rec judicial power. We determine attempt gain access to Rotra- In an T3 released, jurisdiction assume ords should records, petitioner, World mel's writ.5 grant (World Company Publish Publishing intervene in filed a motion to ing/newspaper), FACTS was dismissed request criminal cause. the correct finding based on real 6 the adult August T2 On petition for the be to file interest, procedure would Wayne Rotramel Robert party the records multiple inspection of (Rotramel/adult), was 7807-1.2(F) murder, kidnap- to 10 0.8. including degree first crimes (H).7 being that a Upon advised molestation, through rape forcible sod- ping, lewd juveniles activity alike is of adults provides in criminal Supp.1999 § 7307-1.2 4. Title 10 0.8. See, discussion, pp. high public interest. part: pertinent Court will as Nevertheless, this 847-848, infra. by or as Except provided this section as "A. any jurisdiction in man original action sume by specifically provided state or fed- otherwise right petition shows a clear where the damus laws, juvenile records are eral the following directed to an inferior writ is to be relief if the gener- open be to the and shall not confidential Election v. State State ex rel. Williamson court. inspected, contents dis- public, or their al 275, Bd., P.2d 192 Okla. OK closed: 982. records; 1. Juvenile court records; 2. Agency Publishing application to as- an World filed 6. records; attorney's 3. District petition original jurisdiction a for writ and sume 4. Law enforcement records; Publishing v. Honor- Co. mandamus in World 5. Nondirectory records; and education 829, Miller, OK able Russell C. 6. Social records.... Miller, today. we held that the In also decided con n dentlahty requirements of subsec- 0 The 7307-1.2(F) Supp.1999 § .. provisions of 10 O.S. juvenile court records tlon A of this section (H) judicial prior approval through mandate apply: shall not law enforcement records and general exempted the from of records the release charging of an individual Upon . 2. by confidentiality requirements subsection 7307- title ..." pursuant 7306-1.1 of this to Section 1.2(C) of the statute. provisions of Publishing other asserts that World support of Rotramel's also release the statute 7307-1.2(F) through 10 0.S. 7. Title that we have determined records. Because (H) provides: pursuant to subsec- be released records should required by Except state or otherwise "F. as statute, (C)(2) determine we need not of the tion law, listed in the confidential federal relating provisions of the statute. to other issues may only be in- this section A of subsection Ro- or ex- respondent judge, Affairs and disclosed, corrected Juvenile released, 5. The spected, the court. pursuant an inap punged order that a writ of mandamus tramel contend provided 601.6 Except in Section as otherwise Publishing could obtain propriate World because chapter, any provision no of this title or ordinary appeals process. of this through the relief However, purporting subpoena subpoena duces tecum proper, or is otherwise if mandamus informa- compel of confidential appeal disclosure by might corrected fact that error shall any record confidential tion or right Smith to mandamus. not defeat the does valid. County Oklahoma Coun Comm'rs v. Board authorizing the in- court ¶ 34, order of the G. An ty, 201 Okla. 1949 OK ex- involving public have correction or interest disclosure, Cases release, 177. spection, en- shall be pungement confidential records prof extra-ordinary subject relief to the been by after a review the court prohibition. tered by writs of mandamus fered by and a determination the court Thompson, Gaylord Co. Entertainment 128; ¶ 6, court, regard for the confidentiali- P.2d Keltch with due OK Alfalfa privacy persons ty and the of the records ¶ 1, P.2d OK Bd., 1987 Election County compelling a records, in the ¶ 30, identified 1982 OK Tulsa, 908; Garner City of inspection, release or exists and such reason v. Stillwater Inc. 1325; City, Carpet protection ¶ 28, necessary of a Auth., for the disclosure Hosp. Municipal private legitimate public interest. doubt can be little P.2d 335. There [ request similar for the same records was Publishing World application filed an pending respondent, with the original jurisdiction Honorable assume petition and a April (respondent Sellers White judge), writ of mandamus on November World Publishing responded Rotramel seeking intervened on re- December Responses lease of were Rotramel's filed and law office of the Attorney General on respon- behalf of enforcement records on First Amendment dent, (Juvenile grounds Office of pursuant and Juvenile Affairs Open Af- Act, fairs) Records Supp.1997 § 51 O.S. respondent 244.1 et and the judge on December seq. 73807-1.2(C). 18, 2000, and 10 Supp.1999 § O.S8. 11 and December respectively. {4 conducting After hearing on October 6, 2000, respondent judge issued an order THE T6 JUVENILE AND COURT LAW recognized which she that compelling rea- ENFORCEMENT RECORDS OF INDI- sons existed for the release and disclosure of VIDUALS CHARGED WITH THE portion requested information. Al- CRIMES ENUMERATED IN 10 O.S. though adjudication journal redacted entry SUPP.1997 7306-1.1 ARE OPEN REC- disposition journal entry released, were ORDS PURSUANT TO 10 0.8. SUPP.1999 other court records were withheld. 7307-1.2(C)(2). respondent judge ordered that Rotra- mel's law enforcement records be delivered T7 World Publishing asserts that to her for review. Although the order indi- onee the adult was with one of the cates that these records would be released if crimes enumerated a compelling reason for disclosure was re- the confidentiality requirements vealed inspection redaction, after relating to his World law enforcement Publishing has supplied not been records were removed to 10 O.S. the adult's law compiled enforcement records 7307-1.2(C)(2). respondent eighteenth before his birthday. judge, Rotramel and Juvenile argue Affairs Except records, attorney any for district "Chapter, part captions part article and are of disclosure, authorizing order the release or the Oklahoma Juvenile Code, but shall not be inspection govern, juvenile of deemed to any a limit confidential or in record manner scope, affect may meaning the pro- or intent of the conditioned on such terms and restric- part visions of article or of this Code." tions as the necessary appro- court deems and Legislature clearly The ters, chap intended that the priate. part captions articles and of the Juvenile Upon filing petition H. inspection, of a Code part should be statutory considered a of the release, juvenile disclosure, or correction of a Nevertheless, scheme. statutory the same lan record, the court shall set a hearing date for a guage specifically provides heading that the de provide thirty-day and shall a notice to all marcations meaning shall not alter scope, parties, person interested who is the sub- legislative intent provisions. 10 O.S. ject (18) person of the record eighteen if the is § 7301-1.1, Supp.1995 [The use of supra. older, years age of parents or to the of a generally signifies legislative "shall" command. (18) child if eighteen the child is less than through United States Farmers Home Admin. v. years record, age, attorneys of and to the of if Hobbs, 77, ¶ 7, 338; 1996 OK 921 P.2d State ex any. hearing may The be closed at the discre- rel. Freeman, v. 1991 OK Macy 59, ¶ 8, 814 P.2d tion of court." 147; Comm'n, Corp. Corp. Forest Oil v. 1990 OK 58, ¶ 26, 807 P.2d 774. Nevertheless, the term 8. Rotramel arguments makes two Hudson, novel permissive. not can be Minie v. 1997 OK adopted ¶ 7, respondent 1082; judge Texaco, either the or Juve 934 P.2d City Inc. v. of 7307-1.2, nile § Affairs. The first is that because Oklahoma 1980 OK. ¶ 9, 619 P.2d City, 869.] 4, supra, mandatory language coupled part see note pro is a of title 10 of other clearly apply visions which relating to adults rather Statutes than to "children" and is juveniles to children or defeats the (Juve contained assertion that in the Oklahoma Juvenile Code inclusion of a Code), section within the Juvenile Code Supp.1995 nile § 10 O.S. seq., 7301-1.1 et requires ipso inapplicable that it must be the statute inapplicable any person must be facto Supp.1996 an adult. §§ 7307-1.7 age eighteen. over the The second is that the referring sealing, 7307-1.8 unsealing may opened which under 10 0.S. expungement juvenile records. Both stat Supp.1999 7307-1.2(C), § supra, see note are specifically utes juvenile, refer to actions pertaining the records charges. to current adult, turned which affect the individual's 7301-1.1(C) Supp.1995 Title 10 0.8. provides: § rights concerning confidentiality the status of the 7807-1.2(C)@) § is was Supp.1999 that Rotramel 19 It is uncontested that 10 0.8. the erimes one or more of 1) charged with Rotramel grounds: on two inapplicable § Supp.1997 78306-1.1. in 10 0.8. enumerated Supp. to 10 O.S. "charged was not Nevertheless, respondents and Rotramel 2) Supp.1999 7306-1.1"; O.S. § (C)(2) should be that subsection all contend 7307-1.2(C)(2) applied retro- should not be § interpretation, literally. Under their read actively. un- are removed confidentiality restrictions 7807-1.2(C)(2)only § Supp.1999 10 0.8. der statutory scheme. The current a. actually brought under charges are when applica- confidentiality exception to T8 The ie. when a between 7807- O.S8. ble here-10 "charged" ages of thirteen and seventeen 1.2(C)(2)-provides: Publishing asserts under the statute. World requirements of sub- confidentiality reference to "The Legislature intended its that the juvenile court A this section for in 10 7307- section 7306-1.1 O.S8. ap- not records shall 1.2(C)(2) and law enforcement provide merely a list of those ply: justifying lifting crimes serious requirements confidentiality pursu- charging an individual Upon the records. court and enforcement We law of this title." ant to 7306-1.1 Section agree. Supp.1997 § 7806-1.1 Title ages Legislative of thirteen intent"10controls between T10 that individuals Intent ascer statutory interpretation.11 particu a list of who commit and seventeen light of its from the whole act be considered as tained larly egregious crimes shall "12 objective considering purpose and general adults.9 Further, subsequent delinquency Title 10 O.S. matter. the location of proceedings. 7307-1.2(C)(4) provides: statutory particular scheme a statute within requirements of subsec- ''The validity. Green v. affect its force or will not 70, ¶ 12, Green, juvenile court records 309 P.2d 276. See tion A of this section for 1957 OK also, apply: F.Supp. Durgan, 1262-63 records shall not and law enforcement Yox (E.D.Tenn.1969); Parental fourteen In re Termination 4. To the who is W., Boy adjudicated Baby Rights Biological has been Parents or older and who subsequently ¶ delinquent comes before concurring and who J., P.2d 1270 OK [Opala, Tulsa, City judgment.]; delinquency 1998 OK McNeill v. new matter court on a 329; 2, ¶ 7, Tony's Town July Johnson 1995[.]" after 355; Quik, Mister charges Legis- are some which there they are such that should has deemed 640; lature 45, ¶9, OK Harber Shaffer, P.2d 147, ¶ 4, OK 657 Church, v. 1982 vehicle [Motor Church confidential. never kept 63, Lawton, 151; City 1982 OK self-propelled v. relating McCracken to either traffic violations of vehicles, Hoebel, nonself-propelled 10 0.S. Co. v. 1979 18; P.2d WRG Const. or ¶ 6, 648 ¶ 7, 334; 125, Bingham, Bingham v. 7307-1.2(C)(3) 600 P.2d OK Prevention § and violations State, 396; 263, 6,¶ Hughes Act, v. P.2d Supp OK 366 1961 37 0.8. Access to Tobacco of Youth J., ¶ 4 , 3, [Lumpkin, 868 P.2d 730 OK CR seq., Supp.1999 § 1994 7307- 1994 600.1 et dissenting part.]; concurring part in Ol in 1.2(C)(7).] 104, Olinghouse, APP inghouse 1995 OK CIV v. Rossetti, 280; ¶ 11, 3, 178 v. 7306-1.1, 908 P.2d Santill Supp.1997 § see note 9. Title 10 Com.Pl.1961); 633, (Ohio Okla. 12 639 supra. N.E.2d 261, Rieger Homer Op.Atty.Gen. The Honorable (1980); Paternity, Essay: 53 Okla. What Price Baird, 98, ¶ 35, P.2d OK 996 v. 1999 10. Nealis 77, (2000). L.Rev. 438; Safety, Dept. ex rel. Public Cooper v. State of Supp.1999 § language 7307- of 10 O.S. The 10, 49, ¶ 466. 917 P.2d 1996 OK 4, 1.2(C), clearly encompasses supra, note see those re- opening records other than of ¶ 8, 145, Spitz, 846 P.2d 1992 OK v. 11. Smicklas charges. lating only Subsection to the current 88, ¶ 7, 362; Clifton, P.2d v. 1990 OK Clifton (C) re- specifically that ¶ 4, 741 P.2d 64, OK Odom, v. 693; Fuller apply court rec- quirements will not 449. not, records. It does law enforcement ords and asserts, only provide certain of that as Rotramel 120, ¶ 6, McSorley Corp., 1994 OK v. 12. Hertz open will be records. records the delineated Co., 1343; Liberty Oglesby Mut. Ins. 885 P.2d allowing one of the conditions at least ¶ specifically 834; P.2d Smicklas opening 8, 832 of 61, Spitz, 1992 OK for the 11, supra. in a see note opening relates to the provisions together relevant give full force ords of the "individual" longer are no confi- presumes and effect to each.13 The Court dential. only exception This is the to confi- that the expressed its intent and (C) dentiality within subsection referring to that it expressed.14 intended what it Stat an "individual" "juvenile." rather than to a interpreted utes are purpose to attain that respondent The judge, Office of Af- Juvenile championing public end poli the broad fairs and Rotramel argue that the subsection cy purposes underlying Only them.16 where inapplicable is here because it relates legislative intent cannot be ascertained "juveniles" "charged" pursuant provi- to the statutory from the language, i.e. in cases of sions of 73806-1.1. conflict, ambiguity or statutory are rules of employed.17 However, construction where argument The is unconvincing the statutory language ambiguous is or un respects. First, in "juvenile" two is a de certain, applied construction is to avoid fined term within the Juvenile Code.22A absurdities remembering that Legisla "juvenile" any person eighteen under ex ture is not deemed to have created an ab cept persons charged for with the crimes surdity or done a vain and useless act.19 specified 10 0.8. 7306-1.1.23 inept Where language incorrect has been statutory Pursuant "juve definition of utilized, applied the words are consistent nile", person no of the acts with the purpose real or legislative obvious listed in "juvenile" 7806-1.1 is a pur enac tment.20 poses of the Juvenile Code. statutory 7807-1.2(C)(2) exception T11 Subsection pro to confidentiality in subsection 7807-1.2(C)(2) vides once an "individual" "charged" refers to "individuals" rather 10 0.8. "juveniles". than to If we were ignore court and law enforcement rec- difference in the language utilized and to 13. v. State, 1993 41, ¶ 5, OK Haney 850 P.2d 20. v. Dean, 1992 TRW/Reda OK Pump ¶ 5, 1087; 15; Hall, Public Serv. Co. ¶ 8, Oklahoma v. State ex 829 P.2d Wooten v. 1968 OK Comm'n, Corp. 153, ¶ 8, 334; rel. 1992 OK 842 P.2d 442 P.2d City Board Education Okmulgee Education, 750. v. State Bd. 1948 OK ¶ 13, 200 P.2d 394. Hudson, Minie v. see note 8, Fuller v. supra; "pursuant 21. The Odom, prepositional term to" is a supra; see note Chrysler Darnell v. phrase out; defined as: in carrying the course of 1984 OK ¶ 5, 687 P.2d Corp., agreement conformance to or with; according to a standard. State ex rel. Polar Ware Equitable 15. Oklahoma Ass'n City Taxation v. Muuss, Co. v. 18 Wis.2d 118 N.W.2d Oklahoma 62, ¶ 5, 1995 OK City, cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1029, 116 S.Ct. 674, 133 (1995); L.Ed.2d 523 Wilson v. State Legislature may always 22. The pre exercise the Comm'n, 62, ¶ 5, ex rel. Oklahoma Tax 1979 OK rogative phrases to define appearing words or 1210; Mgt. Corp. v. Oklahoma Affiliated legislative enactments and where a statute con Comm'n, Tax 1977 OK 183, 570 P.2d 335. definition, tains a binding definition is on City Oklahoma, the courts. Tulsa v. State ex Haggard Haggard, 1998 OK Bd., Employees rel. Public Relations 439; Co., P.2d Price v. Southwestern Bell Tel. ¶ 14, 1214; Tulsa, City Oliver v. 1982 of 50, ¶ 7, 1991 OK. 812 P.2d 1355. 121, ¶ 18, OK 654 P.2d 607. Colclazier, 17. Dept. State ex rel. Human Serv. v. 23. Title of § 7301-1.3 1997 OK 134, ¶ 9, 950 824; P.2d Matter Estate pertinent part: of Flowers, 19, ¶ 11, 1993 OK 848 P.2d 1146. "'When used in the Oklahoma Juvenile Code, requires: unless the context otherwise Holt, ¶ 2, 125, 1130; 18. In re 1997 OK 932 P.2d 'juvenile' ... 4. 'Child' any person or means Cox Dawson, v. 11, ¶ 1996 OK 911 P.2d 272; (18) eighteen years age, under except Corp. TXO Corp. Production v. Oklahoma (16) (17) sixteen or seventeen any person years Comm'n, 1992 OK 39, ¶ 7, 829 P.2d 964. age charged any who specified with crime in subsection A of Section 7306-1.1 of this Co., 19. Comer title, v. Risk Mut. Ins. 1999 OK. any (13), person (14) Preferred thirteen fourteen 86, ¶ 18, 991 P.2d age or fifteen 1006; charged v. Commissioner who is with Bryant Dept. 134,¶ 11, Safety, Public 1996OK degree pursuant murder in the first to subsec- 937 P.2d 496. tion B of Section 7306-1.1 of this title ..."

$43 exception Despite 1 14 the assertion the statute urged, adopt the construction apply because he was not applica cannot to Rotramel nullity. It would not would be a provisions, § "charged" pursuant to its 7306- committing with persons charged ble to "charging the attributes of a Supp. 1.1 has none of 10 0.8. crimes enumerated serious It not define an offense are statute." does § the individuals 7306-1.1 because Rather, pro it any elements thereof. meaning of the "juveniles" within not persons with a "charged" vides that certain apply to It would not statutory definition. laundry crimes shall be consid list of serious eighteen over when because he was Rotramel sense, In the literal individu ered as adults. hold that Rotramel's charged. $ "charged" pursuant to 7306-1.1 als are not charged at accessible-if would be Young people, who are accused of majority-would at all. after rather than seventeen crimes, "charged" are under the enumerated absurdity. Essentially, such a con create an provision-not under 10 applicable criminal expose and cloak struction would Supp.1997 7306-1.1.31 0.8. adult, engaged in the same of whom an both statutory scheme that activities-under {15 Although 10 O.S. protec provides juveniles with generally 7307-1.2(C)(2) drawn, inartfully it may simply nothing anonymity.24 There is tion of determined Legislature that the has is clear provi specific in the in the Code or Juvenile offenses, even when com there are certain in indicating sions at issue eigh under the mitted individuals result. tended such an unbalanced treated, teen, are which compara Second, in the same manner as a purposes, argument an €13 These committed an adult. "charged" under 10 ble offense individuals those Supp. in 10 0.8. offenses are enumerated their Supp.1997 § have 78306-1.1 O.S. statutory .1. Pursuant to the unconvincing. 7306-1 is likewise records disclosed Oklahoma, statutory.25 The "juveniles" all crimes are in 10 In contained 0.8. definition 1801-1.3(4), persons "charged Supp.1997 $ the statuto of a crime are essential elements are specified" in 7806-1.1 crime defining the offense.26 Gener ry provisions "juveniles" meaning by a not within given crime is ally, notice of the "information", document, statutory filed Juvenile Code. charging three When these Although an infor clear against the defendant.27 together, it is provisions are considered that in Legislature has determined of a that the allege each element mation need not attack, particularly process it who stand accused a due dividuals crime to withstand charged as adults should be charges serious offenses notice of the give must the defendant "Charging public. open to mount a defense.28 to the sufficient and have their Therefore, individual is hold that when an provisions we legislative are those statutes" crimes enumerated charged with one of the and its the crime committed which define 78306-1.1, general Supp.1997 $ in 10 brought pursuant 0.8. Charges are elements.29 Supp. confidentiality requirements of 10 0.8. covering the offense.30 specific statute 7307-1.2(A), see 536 P.2d 111, ¶ 10, OK CR 24. Title 10 State, v. chester 224, ¶ 5, OK CR State, v. 995; note Wallace supra. ¶ 7, State, v. 1973 OK CR 548; P.2d Jones State, 2;§ v. Morrison 25. Title 21 0.S.1991 Massie, 280; Application In re 1189. 33, ¶ 7, OK CR 792 P.2d 56, ¶ 9, 283 P.2d 573. OK CR note State, v. see 26. Morrison supra. 41, ¶ 5, State, OK CR 30. Smith ¶ 19, CR State, 1996 OK Parker 117 S.Ct. denied, 519 U.S. 980, cert. 136 L.Ed.2d State, CR W.D.C. 22, ¶ 1, State, 142; OK CR .J. v. 1990 P.2d K.L ¶ 13, State, 56, Carpenter 929 v. 1996 OK CR 28. 71, State, 361; OK CR v. 1988 824 P.2d S.A.H. State, 27, see note Parker v. 988; supra. P.2d State, 1983 OK CR 381; Canion v. ¶ 1, 753 P.2d See, Coun Cleveland 29. State v. District Court v. John ex rel. Coats 25; P.2d State 61, ¶ 2, 663 ¶ 3, son, 58, 597 P.2d 328. OK CR 552; 1979 68, ¶ 3, OK CR Selby ty, Wor- 599; State, 1983 OK CR 7307-1.2(A) apply do not per- appears It from the redacted docu- son's court and law by respondent enforcement rec- ments released judge ords. adjudication Rotramel's disposi- tion hearings were in April held March and 1994, respectively. Presumably, the inci- retroactivity presented. b. No issue of is giving dent hearings place rise to the took respondent year either earlier that judge, 116 The or in Juve 1998. At the adjudication, nile time of the incident Affairs and Rotramel contend that 10 7307-1.2(C)(2) $ 0.8. provided should not pertinent part: 1125.3 in applied give because to do so is to it a "A. restrictions other- retrospective application by not intended provided by wise law for Legislature.32 Publishing argues World apply: records shall not procedural the statute is in nature and sub 8, Upon ... the charging or certification of ject application.33 to retroactive juvenile pursuant a to Section 1104.2 of Title 10 of the OklahomaStatutes. 117 We need not determine the B. The confidentiality provid- restrictions Supp.1999 7807-1.2(C)(2), nature of 10 0.8. ed law for law enforcement records whether remedial or substantive. If the pertaining juveniles apply shall not Legislature statutory provision, amends a juveniles arrest records of defined portions original statute which are Section of this act as serious offenders or repeated are considered to have been the law habitual juveniles offenders or to from they the time originally were enacted.34 charged pursuant or certified to Section Further, when a revised and consolidated act 1104.2of Title 10 of the OklahomaStatutes re-enacts substantially the same or pursuant or certified to Section 1112 of provisions same terms the of the act or acts Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes...." consolidated, so revised and the revision and consolidation are taken as a continuation of 1104.2,"37 Section like the current version of acts, the former act or although the former $ 10 0.S. particu lists act or expressly repealed acts by the larly which, egregious offenses if committed revised and consolidated act.35 In such in by persons ages between the of sixteen and stances, question no regarding seventeen, retroactive result in the being treat application presented.36 ed as adult and confidentiality restrictions Generally, legislation 32. operates new prospec 37. Title 10 0.S. 1104.2 tively only clearly unless the has indi pertinent part: exists, contrary cated a intent. If doubt it (16) Any person "A. sixteen or seventeen against resolved retroactive effect. State ex rel. murder, who is with America, v. Guardian Ins. Co. Crawford Life kidnapping, robbery dangerous weapon, with a OK 10, ¶ 8, 1235; P.2d Forest Oil Corp. rape Oklahoma, degree, Corporation ¶ rape by in the first Comm'n instrumenta- see note 8 tion, supra. at weapon use of firearm or other offensive committing felony, while a arson in the first remedy If a statute affects and not a degree, burglary explosives, burglary right, apply substantive retroactively. it will degree the first or second after three or more State ex rel. v. Guardian Ins. Co. Crawford Life adjudications committing burglary either America, ¶ 12; supra see note at Forest Oil degree burglary first in the second de- Corp. Oklahoma, Corporation Comm'n see kill, gree, shooting discharging with intent to ¶ note 8 at supra. firearm, weapon crossbow or other from a © vehicle to subsection B of Section Comm'n, 34. Wilson v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Statutes, 652 of Title the Oklahoma in- 62, ¶ 1210; v. Hutch Branz witness, inson, timidating manslaughter in the first 128 Neb. 260 N.W. 200-01 (1935). degree, sodomy, nonconsensual or manufac- turing, distributing, dispensing, possessing Tulsa, City supra. Oliver v. see note with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dis- pense substance, dangerous a controlled shall In re Interest H., Natasha 258 Neb. be considered as an adult...." 602 N.W.2d

845 IL. to 10 0.8.1991 being removed § 1125.8. PRESENTED, THE FACTS 120 UNDER change not THE " 19 The law did TO RELEASE ADULTS FAILURE Supp. of 10 O.S. or addition the amendment EN- AND LAW JUVENILE COURT 7307-1.2(C)(2). de The 1999 AN UN- FORCEMENT RECORDS WAS 7307-1.2(C)(2) of §in that certain APPLICATION OF JUDI- termined AUTHORIZED fenses, by individuals when committed even CIAL POWER. treated, are eighteen,

under the adult, Rotramel, is T21 in manner confidentiality purposes, the same charged not with the most serious of by an comparable offense committed as a society-murder-but also against crimes in enumerated those offenses 10 adult and kidnapping, with the sexual molestation expressed It Supp.1997 7806-1.1. O.S. express rape of minors. Even were there no in version of the statutes same intention statutory provision mandating the release of juvenile of Rotramel's applicable at the time records, present under the facts Rotramel's there has been no adjudication. Because ed, the documents consti failure to release concerning law change substantive judicial force.39 tutes an unauthorized use retrospective/pro confidentiality, the issue of $22 judges may release statutory Juvenile spective application of the current presented.38 compel- is not upon a scheme that a determination 466, (6th Cir.1999), Sundquist, 480 cert. 193 F.3d and Rotramel contend 38. Juvenile Affairs 1554, denied, 1053, application of the statute would alter retroactive U.S. 120 S.Ct. 146 529 Jiles, (2000); juvenile right privacy in the States v. 658 the adult's vested L.Ed.2d 460 United 194, (3rd Cir.1981); Chase, F.2d 200 Matter of proceedings. Nevertheless, Juvenile Affairs con- 1000, excep- 436, any of the enumerated cedes that should 1008 112 Misc.2d 446 N.Y.S.2d 7307- confidentiality springs tions outlined in 10 juvenile's right to A 1.2(C) subject apply, are to release. the records "policy interest." Davis v. from state law as a support response Alaska, 308, 1105, and brief in of State {The 39 L.Ed.2d 415 U.S. 94 S.Ct. (1974). confidentiality ex rel. Office of Juvenile Affairs preservation Oklahoma, 347 original jurisdiction application to assume is a not a constitutional question. political, Decem- mandamus, writ of filed on petition "Disclosing Identities of Juvenile Blum, A. 11, 2000, pp. pertinent part at 8- ber Accountability Introducing to Juvenile Felons: 9: Justice," Although Loy.U.Chi. 27 LJ. expecta- may general statutory create a scheme «« horse, beating spirit dead . In exceptions allowing privacy, disclosure of tion of again proposition asserts in 'D' Petitioner once to countervail records are sufficient Respondent by holding of its Brief that erred right juvenile. statutorily privacy created confidentiality exceptions forth set that the 1373, 1375 Chacon, v. 564 F.2d United States apply to Rotra- do not in section 7307-1.2.C also, (9th Cir.1977). Inglesi, v. See United States previously As forth mel's records. set Cir.1993) (4th to seal a [Failure 988 500 F.2d above, Respondent's propositions 'A' and 'B' required by statute did not violate record regard While ruling was not error. in that process rights, there was no viola- due because correctly is asserts that no discretion Petitioner arising right to the level of constitution- tion of a records which fall allowed for in the release of protection.]. al C, exceptions of subsection Petition- under the superfluous argument regard in that is er's prerogative writ will issue to arrest 39. A correctly Respondent Rotra- ruled that because judicial use of force. unauthorized or excessive excep- records do not fall under those mel's Thompson, Gaylord 1998 Co. v. Entertainment tions...." 128; v. 30, ¶ 6, OK 958 P.2d Brock Thompson, regarded as a in the brief Admissions 127, ¶ 5, 948 P.2d 279. appellate supplement record. Oklahoma the release of of review for standard Technology City v. Urban Renewal Auth. Medical recognized appeal generally as that records on Oklahoma, 2000 OK & Research Auth. of rel. Plain of discretion. State ex of an abuse Wright v. Grove Sun ¶ 14, 677; 4 P.3d Newspaper, County, Geauga Ohio Publishing 37, ¶ 2, 983; Dealer Co. Inc., OK Kwik 2000); (Ohio Mayberry, 1990 OK N.E.2d St.3d set/Ernhart Benton, County Co. v. Seattle Times there has Our determination 239.] (1983); In re Wash.2d change in the law concern been no substantive R.G., Cal.Rptr.2d Cal.App.4th confidentiality dispositive the assertion. ing Cetrulo, (2000); "Open Nevertheless, to Juvenile S. Access determined that other courts have Ky. Ris. J. Proceedings," 1 Children's Mar right rec a minor's in nature. Cutshall ords is constitutional not 846

ling reason exists for disclosure and that the tions have juvenile allowed the release of necessary protection release in variety is for the of a records a of situations.43 legitimate public private interest.40 The 123 Just as it is clear that an adult with a recognized has if the Juve previous juvenile adjudication should not be fail, goals juvenile nile Code's rehabilitative concerned that those records will be released may subsequent records utilized adult merely stop, because of a routine traffic it is proceedings sentencing purposes, for even if unquestionable also once adult those records have been sealed.41 charged with the serious crimes outlined in the Appeals Oklahoma Court of Criminal 10 has general the juvenile held that history the of an adult presumption privacy of growing hopes out of 4 may offender presentence included for rehabilitation have failed.4 Under presented, investigation report facts privacy balance of used to facilitate the versus trial court's determination appropriate protection public weighs heavily imposed.42 sentence to be jurisdic- Other favor of disclosure.45 Supp.1999 7307-1.2(F) 40. Title 10 O.S. Eighth v. Judicial Court, Dist. 105 Hickey Nev. 7, (G), through supra. see note (1989) 729, 782 P.2d 1336, 1339 of [Discovery juvenile appropriate son's records in action al 7307-1.7(F) 41. pro- Title10 O.S. leging negligent supervision.]; father's Seattle pertinent part: vides in Times Co. v. Benton, 99 Wash.2d 251, County of judiciary, attorneys, "Members of district 964, (1983) 661 P.2d 966 newspa [Research the defendant, the defendant's counsel and em- per reporter on issue of whether abused children bureaus, ployees juvenile Depart- [sic] the suffer more from intervention or nonintervention ment assigned juvenile of Juvenile Justice legitimate state was research sufficient to al court intake and the responsibilities, Depart- juvenile low release records.]; Matter ment of Corrections access records that 708, Hollingshead, Interest 228 Kan. 619 P.2d have been sealed to this section with- (1980) 1160-61 [Trial court did not abuse discre purpose out a court order for the of determin- releasing year juvenile tion in name of 15 old ing whether an action, dismiss seek a volun- adjudicated a miscreant child for his involve tary probation, petition, file purposes or for media.]; ment in school vandalism to news In re sentencing placement in a case where the R.G., 1408, 818, Cal.App.4th Cal.Rptr.2d 79 94 person subject who is the of the sealed record (2000) [In 825 connection with child protective alleged subsequent ju- to have committed a proceeding, good school district demonstrated delinquent venile act or adult criminal juvenile cause showing for release of records offense...." teacher had abused children.]; his Na sexually 315, (10th Carney, United States v. 106 F.3d 317 Court, vajo Express Superior Cal.App.3d v. 186 Cir.1997). 981, 165, Cal.Rptr. (1986) juve 231 167 [Where State, Young put 42. v. 1976 OK CR nile his mental condition in evidence in a suit, personal injury party real in interest was juvenile entitled to disputing discover records 43. United States Chacon, see 38, note supra condition See claimed.]; also, In re J.R., 307 juvenile [Where is involved in a transaction Ill. 175, 240 Ill. Dec. 375, 717 N.E.2d App.3d leading prosecution, juvenile's to another's (1999) [Although property manager where subject though records are to release even juvenile inspect committed juve murder could action.]; party is not a State ex records, statutory nile there authority was no Louden, Dispatch Printing rel. Co. v. 91 Ohio copying allow the of the records.]; But see, Clerk St.3d, 61, (2001) 741 N.E.2d [Closure of Municipal City Court Cordova v. juvenile hearing press unjustified juve when (Ala.Civ.App.1997) 702 So.2d Lynn, [In presented closure.); argument supporting nile no attempting dividual to determine whether to sue In re B., James 315, 714 A.2d Conn.Supp. city was not entitled to unredacted docket sheets (1998) 735, 739 [Insurer as a "victim" of delin showing juvenile actions.]; In re G., Sheldon quent act allowed access to records in (1990) Conn. 583 A.2d 112, 112 show [Only Madison, proceeding.]; civil State v. 163 Vt. ing compelling justified need non-consensual (1995) 659 A.2d [Juvenile records re disclosure of information contained in leased hearing for consideration in bail to deter purposes records litigation involving for of civil posed mine if defendant substantial threat adult.]. society.]; Brewing Corp., Matter of Falstaff (R.I.1994) A.2d 1047, 1051 [Juvenile's State, Young supra. note subject were to release to the victim of a crime action.]; Brown, use in civil State v. Idaho [It is within felony, When the crime involved is a best the discretion of the trial court public to order release outweigh policy interests of the rea- State, confidentiality. Taylor sons investigator.]; presentence confidentiality provisions, CONCLUSION respective making open.52 proceedings By records and more Traditionally, records have 124 juvenile allowing access to the court and law of enjoyed a confidential status.46 Policies here, enforcement we do not disre developed out of beliefs that it non-disclosure that, expressed legislative gard the intent important protect individuals from was juvenile generally, records should be confide pro youthful indiscretions and to ridicule for importance recognize ntial.53 We the juvenile goal legislation-r mote the central juveniles opportunity affording to enter juvenile Today, crime has ehabilitation.47 epidemic.48 stigmatization recognized been as a national adulthood free of the that fol pur lows criminal offenders. public's heightened regarding concern juvenile pose fostering juvenile increasing offenders and the rehabilitation hiding youthful worthy.54 indiscretions prompted the crime rate have erosion enjoyed Nevertheless, status expressed confidential has historically.49 Increasingly, are calls to there Supp.1999 § its intent in 10 7307- public- open juvenile proceedings 1.2(C)(2) that when an individual commits a system hampers either because the closed act, serious criminal the offender should no 50 programs improvements to child welfare longer be entitled to the cloak of confidential serious, strong because there is a belief that so, ity. doing legislative body In un juveniles simply violent do not chronic and doubtedly weighed sweeping has societal respond to rehabilitation.51 justify concern with serious offenses [ necessity ing against disclosure of accu lack of confidence in the rehabili- 25 The coverage publ rate media and an informed Legisla- tative model has led the Oklahoma ic.55 forty-six ture other states to alter their 275, (Ind.1982); Cheyenne N.E.2d 280 K. v. Su "Disclosing the Identities Blum, of Juvenile Fel- Court, 331, Introducing Accountability

perior Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. 208 256 ons: to Juvenile Jus- tice," LJ., 349, (1996). Loy. (1989). 27 U.Chi. 354 re Vt. 68, also, K.F., 211, 70 See In 151 (1989) [Confidentiality privilege A.2d 663-64 559 juvenile charged will not extend to a with man Juvenile & Bazelon, 50. E. "Public Access slaughter pending a decision to transfer Family the Courtroom Court: Should Doors court.]. cause to Closed?", 47, supra. Open or see note Nelson, 46. K. 'The of Juvenile Records Release Coupet, Sheep J.S. "What To Do With the in A New under Wisconsin's Juvenile Justice Code: Reality Clothing: & Wolf's The Role of Rhetoric Promises," System Marq. of False 81 L.Rev. About Youth Offenders in the Constructive Dis- (1998); Juvenile Court 1101 Confidentiality mantling System," the Juvenile Justice 148 Hearing Records: Before Subcommittee on (2000); 1303, U.Pa. L.Rev. 1317 O'Connor & L. Juvenile Justice of the Committee on the Judicia- Treat, "Getting Getting Tough: Ju- Smart About (1983). Cong. 98th 1 2 ry, Progressive Possibility venile Justice & The Reform," 1299, (1996). 33 Am.Crim. L.Rev. 47. Oklahoma Pub. Co. v. District Court Okla ¶ 1286, OK homa County, Sickmund, Snyder 52. H. & M. National Center grounds, on 430 U.S. 97 S.Ct. over'd other Bazelon, (1977); 51 L.Ed.2d 355 E. "Pub & Vic- Justice, for Juvenile Juvenile Offenders Family Report to Juvenile & Should at lic Access Court: tims: 1999 National Closed?", Open the Courtroom Doors be Nelson, (1999); Pol'y K. "The Yale L. & Rev. 155 7307-1.2(A), see 53. Title 10 O.S. Release of Juvenile Records Under Wisconsin's note supra. System A New False Juvenile Justice Code: Promises", 46, supra. note see Brewing Corp., see note 54. Matter of Falstaff Court," Kfoury, supra; Before the P. "Children Thompson, Delinquency: 48. E. "Juvenile A Eng. Confinement, & Civ. 17 New J. on Crim. Past, Future," Present, Judge's View of Our (1991). 55-56 46 Okla. L.Rev. 655 coverage and the discussion of 55. Without such Svonkin, "Recent Steinfield, Bertsche, J. R. S. interest, governmental it is doubtful that issues of Access-2000," in the Law Developments Jr., (2000); Martin, general public make in- "Open would be able to G. PLI/Pat intelligently participate Confidentiality End formed decisions Doors: A Judicial Call to Broadcasting Corp. governance. Proceedings," Eng. Cox Delinquency 21 New J. on their 1029, 1044, Cohn, (1995); S.Ct. A. 420 U.S. Crim. & Civ. Confinement presented, 126 Under the facts failure to 12 The material facts of this case are straightforward. release the an Wayne records was unauthorized use Robert Rotramel Rotramel, adult, judicial allegedly force. is was nineteen old he when (a kidnapped young girls seven-year-old with the most serious of erimes two against society-murder-and twelve-year-old), and a youn- the kid murdered the ger raped one and and sodomized the older rape napping, sexual molestation and of mi life, one. Earlier nors. Whether his failure to rehabilitate his Rotramel had been adjudicated delinquent juvenile proceed- himself is of a fault in the result elsewhere, murder, system ing alleged or lies it is clear that is not related to his rape sodomy and young girls. rehabilitative efforts have not been of the Peti- successfu l.56 sought releasing tioner a court order all of Rotramel's court records and law Pursuant to the laws enacted the enforcement records. The trial re- Legislature considering and the Adju- leased redacted versions of Rotramel's 1) cause, facts this we hold that: Entry Disposition dication Journal and Jour- court and law enforcement records of individ- Entry, nal but did not release other charged uals with the crimes enumerated in records. Supp.1997 § open 10 O.S. 7306-1.1 are rec- pursuant ords to 10 0.8. 7307- I 1.2(C)(2); 2) and presented- under the facts charged an adult committing with heinous 7807-1.2(C)(2) Title section children, against crimes failure to release the apply does not to adults. juvenile court and law enforcement {3 While court records and law judicial was an power. unauthorized use of generally enforcement are confiden- Original jurisdiction is assumed and the writ tial, exceptions. question there are The granted. of mandamus is this exception case is whether the at 10 ASSUMED; ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 0.$.1999, 7307-1.2(C)(2) $ applies to Rotra- WRIT GRANTED. mel, who has a record but was adult at allegedly the time he committed the HARGRAVE, C.J., WATT, V.C.J., 1 28 murder, kidnapping crimes of sodomy. and HODGES, OPALA, KAUGER, C(2) exception provides The confi- "[the WINCHESTER, JJ. concur. dentiality requirements of subsection A of this section for court records and BOUDREAU, 29 LAVENDER and JJ. law enforcement apply: records shall not ... part concurring in and dissenting part. upon charging the of an individual to Section 7806-1.1 of this title" SUMMERS, 1 30 J. dissents. 1999, 7307-1.2(C)(2). § BOUDREAU, J., I, dissenting in Part view, (C)(2) my T4 In language the of the concurring in Part II and with the exception applies is unambiguous solely assumption original jurisdiction and the old, to years individuals 18 to 17 not

issuance of the writ of mandamus. adults, charged who are with one of the respectfully

11 I 0.98.1997, dissent to Part I § of the crimes enumerated 7306- majority's view, (C)(2) opinion. my 0.$.1999, In exception expressly 1.1. The refers to 7307-1.2(C)(2) apply does not to adults. I which is Oklahoma's reverse cer- concur, however, with II opinion terms, Part of the By express tification statute. its assumption original jurisdic- with the applies solely 7806-1.1 to individuals 13 to tion and the issuance of the writ manda- charged old who are with commit- mus. ting one or more of the crimes enumerated (1975); Gaylord L.Ed.2d 328 majority obviously Entertainment Co. not have benefitted from reha Thompson, 958 P.2d 128. T., bilitative efforts. In re Keisha 44 Cal. Rptr.2d Cal.App.4th previously 56. Adults who have been included in juvenile system and who commit crimes after

$49 (C)(@Q) January The prior therein 1998.1 exception public complete juvenile makes anyone charged with record of a crime enu- nothing adults who exeeption has to do with view, my proper §in In merated 7306-1.1. committing one or more of are (C)(2) reading exception crimes. those enumerated only opened records to be are those records {5 opinion attempts majority to ere- pertaining charge. to the current In other ambiguity language in the ate an words, exception treats individu- (C)(2) exception legis- then manufactures public al's current conduct as a matter. It is support proposition that lative intent its Legislature designate clear the knows how to applies juveniles and exception to both juvenile's complete court record when it so ambiguity, In of an the ma- adults. search 7306-2.5(C)(1), example, intends. For Legislature's jority points to the use of complete juve- refers to "the "ju- word "individual" rather than the word Legisla- nile record of the If the accused." (C)(2) exception. According in the venile" (C)(2) exception open up ture intended the majority opinion, Legislature's use individual, complete juvenile record of an Leg- "individual" is evidence of the the word easily it could have done so with the same or (C)(2)exception ap- islature's intent that the language. similar juveniles plies to both and adults. exception Accordingly, T9 the does not view, my Legisla- 1 6 In the reason for the adult," "expose and cloak an but use of the word "individual" instead of ture's merely treats the court records of an individ- "juvenile" The is much less obscure. statuto- who an ual is "considered" adult under 0.9$.2000, "juvenile," ry definition of at 10 way § the 7306-1.1the same court records of .3(4), § 7301-1 excludes individuals who are an adult are treated. Certainly § charged to 7306-1.1. it assuming, arguendo, the 110 Even make no for the to would sense (C)(2) exception language ambigu of the is specifically persons from exclude class of ous, Legislature's the clear intent is that the "juvenile" then to the definition of refer exception apply not to The true does adults. juveniles same individuals as in the these interpretation ambiguous language in a (C)(2) Moreover, exception. Legisla- had the by subject found resort statute to the single ture intended a subsection of Okla- matter, language of a and the statute must apply homa Juvenile Code to to crimes com- read in a harmonizes it with sense which adults, by contrary every to other mitted subject matter. Board Education Code, section of the Oklahoma Juvenile it Independent Burbank School Dist. No. certainly expressed would have intent in this Allen, 1945 OK 195 Okla. simply explicit a more manner than substi- 596. Another rule of construction tuting the word "individual" the word parts light that different of a statute reflect "juvenile." other, upon statutory provisions are each if majority argues 17 The also they regarded pari as in materia where are (C)(2) adults, exception apply did not it part Taylor of the same Act. v. State Farm "absurdity." According would create an Co., Casualty Fire and 1999 OK (C)(2) exception majority, if the did not 7807-1.2(C) 1253. Section contains seven adults, apply exception then the would confidentiality separate exceptions to the re complete juvenile public make record of (A). A quirements of subsection review years an individual 183 to 17 old who is 7307-1.2(C) exceptions § the other six in re charged with a crime enumerated under indisputably applies veals that each of them § but would maintain the confiden- age under of 18.2 The to individuals tiality complete juvenile of an of the record majority opinion its construction has rested crime. adult same (C)(2) alone, exception isolating upon the it (C)(2) {8 excep majority's argument premised exceptions. The from the other (C)(2) part materia assumption on an unexamined that the tion should be construed exceptions pertain to individuals 2. The first two who commit on or after Youth offenses January are treated between 13 and 17 who governed the Youthful Offender 1, 1998, are purposes prosecution-whether Act, 0.$.1997, as adults for §§ 7306 2.1-2.12. or as an adult under 7303-4.3 consid- certified exceptions upon compelling with the other six the statute. a determination that a rea- exceptions light The other six shed on the son exists for disclosure and that the release (C)(2) Legislature's respect intent with to the necessary protection legitimate for the of a exception apply and indicate that it not does public private interest. 10 7807- 0.8. to adults. 1.2(G). The trial court an indi- must.conduct (C)(2) Finally, interpreting ex- records, case-by-case vidualized review of the ception, majority opinion treats 7806- giving regard due merely descriptive 1.1 as list of crimes. privacy persons records and the identi- Actually, § 7806-1.1 is much more than that. fied in the records. Id. which, It not enumerates certain crimes if committed an individual between 183and majority T 14 The correctly concludes that being result the individual considered appeal standard of review on for the purposes prosecution, adult it also release generally recog of such records is gives under-age those individuals substantial nized as that of abuse of discretion. An procedural protections and substantive abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court which are adults not entitled. 7306- clearly makes a erroncous conclusion and 1.1(A)(D). instance, requires For it that the judgment, against reason and evidence. jail accused be detained in a cell or ward Inc., Ins. Krueger, CNA Co. v. entirely separate prisoners from who are view, my 949 P.2d 676. In majority requires adults. It service of the information parent guardian. on the opinion It allows the correctly trial concludes that the trial court, preliminary at the hearing stage of the court abused discretion its when it failed to adult criminal proceeding, certify the indi- release all of Rotramel's court ree- vidual agree as a child. While I with the ords and pursuant law enforcement records majority $ technically 7806-1.1 is not 7807-1.2(G). to 10 0.8. (C)(2) statute," "charging exception clear- ly descriptive is more than a list of crimes. 115 Petitioner compelling articulated a reason to release Rotramel's

T12 records. This might public It policy sound to open complete juvenile implicates, record of an case in a direct indi- and concrete man- crime, charged vidual with a especial- serious ner, ie., public concern, an issue of serious ly in a case as heinous as this But efficacy juvenile system. Access responsibility fashioning public policy to Rotramel's public records will afford the Legislature, rests with the not this Court. I an opportunity open for free and discussion disagree majority opinion with the of a government critical function of in a case (C)(@) extent majority concludes the ex- juvenile where an adult with an unexpunged ception applies to both children and adults. alleged record is repeat to have become a shortly offender after being released from II juvenile supervision. court The trial court abused its discretion when it public failed to release all policy of Rotramel's T16 The of maintaining the records 7807- court records and 12(G). law enforcement primarily records exists [13 juvenile system allow the juve- to rehabilitate Juvenile courts release niles and afford them a they fresh start after court and law enforcement ered an adult excep- exception under 7306-1.1. The adjudi- third fifth is for individuals who are by delinquent tion is for traffic committing delinquent violations committed indi- cated act (It that, adult, by viduals under 18. would felony be nonsensical if committed an would be a exception applying construe the third against person as offense that is a crime adults. Since records felony of adult traffic involving dangerous violations would be a offense confidential, are not weapon. exception there is no need for an The sixth is for the arrest exception confidentiality). excep- The fourth committing records of a arrested for an tion is for individuals 14 or older who have that, act if committed adult, would be a , previously adjudicated delinquent been who seventh, and last, is for felony. exception subsequently come before the court on a violations of the Prevention Youth Access to Act, 600.1, delinquency July new seg. §§ matter after 1995. The Tobacco et juvenile system and passed through have Pub. Daily adults. Smith Mail

become

Co., 61 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. sense, protects policy In that they over" privacy so can "start

juveniles' however, Rotramel, they are adults.

when murder, committing, at adjudi having been sodomy, after

rape and sodomywhen he delinquent for forcible

cated rehabilitat He will not be

was 14 old. Thus, public juvenile system. by the ed can protecting privacy his so he

policy of adulthood no when he reaches

start over

longer applies to him. However, con- a trial court must also persons identified privacy of other

sider privacy records. The

in the court persons other can be

interests of victims and by redacting their names and other

protected

identifying information. this Court Accordingly, agree I jurisdiction grant original

should assume trial requiring mandamus

a writ of juvenile court of Rotramel's

to release all How- records.

records and law enforcement

ever, redact require I the trial court to would identifying information and other

the names privacy interests persons whose

of other

might be harmed disclosure. I am authorized to state Justice expressed here- joins in the views

Lavender

in. OK 56 CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, D.

Linda INDEPEN- OF OF EDUCATION

BOARD NO. 89 OF

DENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Oklahoma, COUNTY, De-

OKLAHOMA

fendant-Appellee. 92,128.

No.

Supreme of Oklahoma. Court

July Sept.

Rehearing Denied

Case Details

Case Name: World Publishing Co. v. White

Court Name: Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Date Published: Oct 4, 2001

Citation: 32 P.3d 835

Docket Number: 95,518

Court Abbreviation: Okla.