R.G. v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. App. 241

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: May 12, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 241 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Elizabeth Perry I attest to the accuracy and DIVISION II integrity of this document No. CR-20-531 2023.06.27 13:53:55 -05'00' 2023.001.20174 Opinion Delivered: May 12, 2021

R.G. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 72JV-19-181]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE STACEY APPELLEE ZIMMERMAN, JUDGE AFFIRMED; MOTION TO STRIKE DENIED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

Appellant R.G. appeals the decision of the Washington County Circuit Court to

release the transcripts of her juvenile-delinquency proceeding to Dynastic Wealth

Management, LLLP (Dynastic). Dynastic filed an appellee’s brief in this case, and R.G.

moved to strike that brief. We passed the motion to strike to the panel, and today we deny

that motion. After review, we hold that the lower court did not err when it released the

transcripts of R.G.’s juvenile-delinquency hearing to both Dynastic and the victim’s mother.

This matter arises from an accident that occurred in 2019. R.G. was driving when

she hit and killed the victim, Andrea Torres, in a crosswalk near the University of Arkansas

campus in Fayetteville. R.G., a minor at the time, eventually pleaded guilty to the juvenile-

delinquency charge that stemmed from the accident. Dynastic is the special administrator of the estate and represents the wrongful-death

beneficiaries of Andrea Torres. In July 2019, Dynastic brought a separate civil action against

R.G. and her parents, alleging that R.G. had breached her duty to exercise ordinary care,

causing Torres’s death.

On March 20, 2020, Dynastic filed a motion in the juvenile court case seeking the

production of the sentencing- or disposition-hearing transcript of June 10, 2019, for the

purpose of using it in the civil action. Counsel for Dynastic then filed an entry of appearance

in the juvenile court matter. On June 9, the juvenile court conducted a hearing on

Dynastic’s motion. At that hearing, R.G. objected to Dynastic’s motion, arguing that

Dynastic lacked standing to file a motion or request relief in the juvenile case. She further

argued that even if the court could release her juvenile records, it could only release

information about the disposition to the victim under Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-

27-309(f) (Repl. 2020). R.G. argued that the scope of section 9-27-309(f) does not extend

to the transcripts.

After arguments, the circuit court found that the victim’s estate and the victim’s

mother had requested the release of the transcript of the juvenile-adjudication and

sentencing proceeding in R.G.’s delinquency case and that the mother was entitled to a

copy of that full transcript for the limited purpose of using it in the civil suit. R.G. timely

appealed. On appeal, she argues that Dynastic lacks standing to request relief in the juvenile

case, and the circuit court improperly released the transcripts from the juvenile proceedings.

2 I.

The question of standing is a matter of law for this court to decide, and this court

reviews questions of law de novo. Ark. Beverage Retailers Ass’n, Inc. v. Moore, 369 Ark. 498,

504, 256 S.W.3d 488, 492 (2007). An error of law can constitute an abuse of discretion.

Hinton v. Bethany Christian Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 301, at 3, 462 S.W.3d 361, 362.

R.G. first argues that neither Dynastic nor Torres’s mother, Teofila Arredondo, had

standing to petition the juvenile court or request the transcript of the juvenile court

proceedings. Proceedings involving juveniles are considered civil cases, but our Juvenile

Code provides that the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure apply to delinquency

proceedings. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-325 (Repl. 2020). Our criminal-procedure rules do

not have a mechanism for intervention like the one provided in Arkansas Rule of Civil

Procedure 24, and a victim does not have any claim in a criminal case. See, e.g., State v.

K.B., 2010 Ark. 228, at 9, 379 S.W.3d 471, 476 (“[W]e hold that a victim does not have a

claim in a criminal prosecution.”); see also Johnson v. State, 342 Ark. 186, 27 S.W.3d 405

(2000) (holding that a witness is not a party to a criminal prosecution and cannot assert a

claim or a defense).

That being said, Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-309, which governs

confidentiality of juvenile records, expressly states that the closed and confidential nature of

those records is within the discretion of the circuit court. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-309(a). It

further provides that the court or the prosecuting attorney may provide “information, upon

written request, concerning the disposition of a juvenile who has been adjudicated

delinquent to . . . [t]he victim or his or her next of kin.” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-309(f)(1).

3 Here, Dynastic, standing in the place of the victim’s next of kin, filed a motion that served

as a written request under subsection (f), and the court exercised its discretion in providing

the information.

II.

R.G. next argues that even if Dynastic did have standing to petition the court for

relief within the confines of the juvenile case, the circuit court could only release

information regarding the disposition of the case, not the transcripts themselves. She asserts

that to release the entirety of the transcripts and exhibits was a misinterpretation of the

statute. We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo, as it is this court’s responsibility

to determine what a statute means. Rent-A-Ctr. E., Inc. v. Walther, 2021 Ark. 10, at 5, 615

S.W.3d 701, 703. As previously mentioned, Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-309(f)

provides that the court may provide a victim or his or her next of kin “information . . .

concerning the disposition of a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent.” (Emphasis

added.)

Here, however, the court released the transcript of the full adjudication and

disposition hearing conducted on June 10, 2019. R.G. argues that “information concerning

the disposition” means that the court was allowed to disclose, at most, the outcome of the

adjudication hearing and not all the proceedings, statements, evidence, exhibits, or

transcripts of the adjudication or disposition hearing. Reading the plain language of the

statute, we do not agree with R.G.’s interpretation. The statute could have just as easily

read “the disposition” but instead it reads “information concerning the disposition.” The

court is not as constrained as R.G. would have us conclude.

4 This is especially apparent when we turn to Echols v. State, 326 Ark. 917, 936 S.W.2d

509 (1996). There, one of the arguments Echols made on appeal was the impropriety of the

State’s using evidence taken from his room and admitted into evidence in his juvenile court

proceeding. Our supreme court succinctly addressed the objection, writing, “It is true that

the items came from Echols’s juvenile court files, but Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-309(a) gives

the juvenile court discretion to open files. The trial court noted that the juvenile court had,

by order, opened the files for the State.” Id. at 957, 936 S.W.2d at 529. The evidence

obtained through the juvenile court records in Echols was broad, much like the information

released here. Even still, the discretion afforded the circuit court is likewise broad, and we

hold that it did not abuse its discretion in releasing the transcripts to the victim’s mother for

the limited purpose of potential use in the pending civil suit.

Affirmed; motion to strike denied.

VIRDEN and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Taylor Law Partners, LLP, by: W. H. Taylor, for appellant.

Odom Law Firm, P.A., by: Matthew L. Lindsay and Bryant E. Crooks; and Elliott and

Smith Law Firm, by: Don R. Elliott, Jr., for Dynastic Wealth Management, LLP.