Touch N' Go®, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit
Touch N' Go's Website to see how.
Johnson v. State (7/26/2002) ap-1811
Johnson v. State (7/26/2002) ap-1811
NOTICE
The text of this opinion can be corrected before the
opinion is published in the Pacific Reporter. Readers
are encouraged to bring typographical or other formal
errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate
Courts:
303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Fax: (907) 264-0878
E-mail: corrections@appellate.courts.state.ak.us
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA
HENRY L. JOHNSON, )
) Court of Appeals No. A-
8079
Appellant, ) Trial Court No.
3AN-S79-1573 CR
)
v. ) O P I N I O
N
)
STATE OF ALASKA, )
)
Appellee. ) [No. 1811 July
26, 2002]
)
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judi
cial District, Anchorage, Michael L.
Wolverton, Judge.
Appearances: John C. Pharr, Anchorage, for
Appellant. Kenneth M. Rosenstein, Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Special
Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and
Bruce M. Botelho, Attorney General, Juneau,
for Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer
and Stewart, Judges.
STEWART, Judge.
In 1980, a jury convicted Henry L. Johnson of
kidnapping and rape. Johnson served his time and is no longer on
supervised probation and parole. In 2001, Johnson moved to have
the court seal the records of his criminal convictions. The
court denied his motion. Johnson now appeals. He claims the
superior court erred when it denied his motion because he
presented "good cause" for the court to seal his records.
Because the superior court could reasonably conclude
that the public policy reasons for allowing criminal records to
remain open to the public outweigh the reasons that Johnson
proffered for sealing his records, we affirm the superior court's
ruling.
Facts and proceedings
In 1980, a jury convicted Johnson of one count each of
kidnapping and rape.1 We affirmed Johnson's convictions on
direct appeal.2 Johnson served his time, and in 1992, his
probation and parole supervision ended.
In 2001, Johnson moved to have the records of his
criminal convictions sealed. Johnson's motion included a
memorandum in support of the motion, an affidavit from Johnson
explaining his reasons for wanting his records sealed, an award
from an employer, and four letters praising Johnson from co-
workers, friends, and a landlord. Superior Court Judge Michael
L. Wolverton denied the motion to seal the records. Johnson now
appeals.
Discussion
Did Johnson present good cause for sealing his file?
Johnson states that he is "completely rehabilitated"
and that public access to his files adversely affects his life.
Johnson believes several recent events are related to individuals
finding out about his conviction, including harassing phone
calls, vandalism of his shed and truck (they were smeared with
mud), a false accusation by a co-worker that Johnson threatened
him, and "bad attitudes displayed toward him by [his superiors]."
He believes co-workers have information on his convictions
because the company does background checks of employees. Johnson
recently married, and he would like to put the past behind him.
Johnson acknowledges that his case is the subject of a
published opinion,3 but he still wants to limit access to his
record.4 Johnson's proposed order states, "The records of
defendant's conviction are sealed, and may be viewed only upon a
showing of good cause to the court."
The policy of open access to public records has a long
history. At common law, every interested person was entitled to
inspect public records.5 And in Alaska, the open records policy
dates back to 1900.6 Alaska Statute 40.25.120(a) provides that
"every person has a right to inspect a public record in the
state" and lists exceptions not applicable in Johnson's case.
More specifically, AS 12.62.160 provides for the use and release
of criminal justice information:
(b) Subject to the requirements of this
section, and except as otherwise limited or
prohibited by other provisions of law or
court rule, criminal justice information
. . . .
(8) may be provided to a person for any
purpose, except that information may not be
released if the information is nonconviction
information or correctional treatment
information[.]
In addition, Alaska Administrative Rule 37.5(a)
provides: "All public records within the Alaska Court System
shall be open to inspection by any member of the public[.]" This
administrative rule defines "public records" to include any
"document or item filed with, or prepared, owned, or used, by the
Alaska Court System which contains information relating to the
conduct of the public's business[.]"7 The rule enumerates four
exceptions to the requirement that records be open to the public,
including "[m]atters which are required to be kept sealed or
confidential pursuant to statute, court rule or order of a court
for good cause[.]"8
In cases where there is no express exception to the
state's disclosure laws, we balance "the public interest in
disclosure on the one hand, and the privacy and reputation
interests of the affected individuals together with the
government's interest in confidentiality, on the other."9 We
also recognize the legislature's expressed bias in favor of
public disclosure and that "[d]oubtful cases should be resolved
by permitting public inspection."10 In a case involving criminal
records, we balance the public's right to know about an
individual's past crimes against the convicted individual's right
to privacy.
Johnson's case is no different than any number of
felons who are successfully rehabilitated yet who can point to
negative events in their lives and blame the events on the
disclosure of criminal records. "Courts, commentators, and
legislatures have recognized that a person with a criminal record
is often burdened by social stigma, subjected to additional
investigation, prejudiced in future criminal proceedings, and
discriminated against by prospective employers."11
We need not define the parameters of "good cause" in
this case. Even if the court has the power to seal a court file
such as Johnson's if presented with extraordinary circumstances
to override public access, the superior court could reasonably
conclude that Johnson has not shown such extraordinary
circumstances. Furthermore, state law and the court rules
express a clear preference for public records to remain
accessible. Accordingly, the superior court did not abuse its
discretion when it denied Johnson's motion to seal his court
records.
Conclusion
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
_______________________________
1 Former AS 11.15.260 and former AS 11.15.120(a)(1),
respectively.
2 See Johnson v. State, 662 P.2d 981 (Alaska App. 1983).
3 See id.
4 Johnson is not required to register as a sex offender
because he committed his sexual offense in 1980, prior to the
legislature's 1994 enactment of the Alaska Sex Offender
Registration Act. See Doe v. Otte, 259 F.3d 979, 995 (9th Cir.
2001) (holding that the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act
violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States
Constitution when applied to defendants whose crimes were
committed before enactment of the law), cert. granted, 70
U.S.L.W. 3374, 122 S.Ct. 1062, 151 L.Ed.2d 966 (U.S. Feb. 19,
2002) (No. 01-729).
5 See Kenai v. Kenai Peninsula Newspapers, Inc., 642 P.2d
1316, 1319 (Alaska 1982).
6 See id.
7 Alaska R. Admin. P. 37.5(b).
8 Alaska R. Admin. P. 37.5(b)(4).
9 Anchorage v. Anchorage Daily News, 794 P.2d 584, 590
(Alaska 1990) (citing Kenai, 642 P.2d at 1325).
10 Kenai, 642 P.2d at 1323.
11 Journey v. State, 895 P.2d 955, 959 (Alaska 1995).
