Home Browse Media Law Resources Guides New Mexico - Open Courts Compendium IX. Interests often cited in opposing a presumption of access

E. Sexual assault issues

Overview

In Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 602‑03 (1982), the Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment access right and struck down a statute that required “the exclusion of the press and general public during the testimony of a minor victim in a sex-offense trial.” It added, however, that the presumption of public access “does not mean, however, that for purposes of this inquiry the court cannot protect the minor victim by denying these representatives the opportunity to confront or cross-examine the victim, or by denying them access to sensitive details concerning the victim and the victim’s future testimony. Such discretion is consistent with the traditional authority of trial judges to conduct in camera conferences.” Id. at 609 n .25.

New Mexico

In New Mexico, sex crime trials are common examples of proper uses of discretion by the trial judge in barring the public from the courtroom. State v. Padilla, 91 N.M. 800, 581 P.2d 1295 (Ct. App. 1978); but see Does v. Roman Catholic Church, 122 N.M. 307, 942 P.2d 273 (Ct. App. 1996) (holding that the district court had authority to permit disclosure of the archbishops deposition testimony in a sexual abuse case to media parties when the archbishop and the archdiocese failed to show good cause to continue the protective order). Further, in any prosecution for criminal sexual penetration or criminal sexual contact of a minor, upon motion of the district attorney and after notice to the opposing counsel, the district court may, for good cause shown, order the taking of a videotaped deposition of any alleged victim under the age of sixteen years. N.M.S.A. 1978, § 30-9-17.The videotaped deposition shall be taken before the judge in chambers in the presence of the district attorney, the defendant and his attorneys. Id.