Crouse, Lawrence Frank v. State

Opinion

Order entered March 22, 2013

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-12-00863-CR

LAWRENCE FRANK CROUSE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 002-87861-2011

ORDER The Court has before it the State’s March 4, 2013 motion to unseal State’s Exhibit nos. 3

and 4 and Defendant’s Exhibit no. 3 so that the State may refer to the exhibits in its brief. The

exhibits involved are appellant’s Presbyterian Hospital discharge instructions, Presbyterian

Hospital records, and LifePath treatment records. The State asserts the exhibits were unsealed at

the beginning of the trial, admitted into evidence, and that witnesses testified about information

contained in the exhibits. The trial court resealed the exhibits at the conclusion of the trial. The

State contends there is no legal basis for sealing the exhibits. The State says appellant raised an

issue specifically challenging State’s Exhibit nos. 3 and 4, and the State had to refer to the sealed

exhibits in response. The State asks that we unseal the exhibits so that its brief may be made available to the public without violating the trial court’s order. Appellant did not respond to the

State’s motion.

The State does not complain it did not have access to the sealed exhibits in order to

prepare its brief. Nor does the State complain the records are not available for this Court’s

review. Rather, the State’s focus appears to be on its ability to cite to the exhibits and to have its

brief available to the public.

Various witnesses testified to the contents of the exhibits during trial, but the trial court

did not seal the entire record related to that testimony. Rather, the trial court, in the interest of

protecting appellant’s rights under HIPPA, determined the medical record exhibits should be

sealed. Based on the argument presented in the State’s motion, we cannot conclude the trial

court abused its discretion by ordering the exhibits to be sealed.

Accordingly, we DENY the State’s motion to unseal the exhibits without prejudice to the

State reasserting its motion to the submissions panel.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE