STATE OF INDIANA

IN

)

THE ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT 3

'
‘

)SS:

COUNTY OF ELKHART

CAUSE NO. 20D03-O309-MR-0155
’

"

STATE 0F INDIANA
'

vs.

AMENDED
oRDER

vvvwv

FELED
MAY 30-2018

ANDREW ROYER
V

ELKHART SUPEmon
This matter remains before the Court on a request for access to the entire record of

court proceédings

in

the herein above referenced case, formerly 20C01—0309—M R-0155,

coum m

made

pursuant to the Indiana Access to Public Records‘Act, LC. § 5-14—3—3, receit/ed by the Court on

November

17, 2017.

The Indiana Access to
0t the state that

of

all

Public Records Act (the ”Act”) provides that

persons are entitled to

government and the

official acts

full

of those

it is

the public policy

and complete information regarding the

who

represent them as public

officials

affairs

and
‘

employees.

 .

C.

§ 5-14—3—1. However, the public’s right of access to public records

subject to well—recognized exceptions under the Act.

Additionally, Ind.

Court and pursuant to

 .

Admin
C.

R.-

9,

l.

C.

is

also

§ 5—i4—3—4.

pursuant to the inherent authority of the Indiana Supreme

§ 5—14—3—4(a)(8), specifically governs public access to, and

confidentiality of, court records. This rule recognizes there are strong societal reasons for

allowing public access to court records; hovi/ever, Ind. Admin.

R.

9 attempts to balance

competing interests and recognizes that unrestricted aceess to certain information
records could result

in

-‘

in court}

an unwarranted'invasion of personal privacy or unduly increase the

:riSk
I

of injury to individuals and businesses. Ihd. Admin. R. 9(A) starts from the presumption of epen

public access to court records.

ln

some circumstances, however, there
'

1

are sound reasons for

 -

restricting access to certain records as detailed in Ind.

rememberthat, generally,
voluntarily, but rather

person

who

is

at least

some

of the parties

be taken that the privacy

rights

and

may

also be

R. 9(6).

It is

also important to

a court case are not in court

plaintiffs

mentioned

or by the government.

in

A

the court record. Care should

interests of such involuntary parties or third parties are not

unduly compromised. Commentary to

Ind.

Admin. Rule

9(A).

carefully reviewed the case file herein, as well as the Opinion of
P‘ublic
the

Access Counselor rendered on March

2,

2018, and

access to and copies of the Chronological Case

file

in

have been brought ihto court by

not a party to the action

The Court has

Admin.

now

orders the Clerk of the COurt to provide

Summary

(CCS) and

documents contained

in_the

which are non—confidential records to the Petitioner Christian Sheckler of the South Ben‘d

Tribune as reouested by him at
in this

his cost.

Petitioner

may

also obtain a

cause by requesting the same from the Court Reporter at

copy of the

trial

transcript

his cost.

'

The Court, however,

after reviewing Petitioner’s request

and the subject case

file,

has

determined that certain documents contained therein are either mandatorily or diseretionarily
excluded from disclosure.

rl.

C. § 5—24—3-4la), as a

records

fall

If

undisclosed records

matter of law, those records

fall

within a mandatory exception listed under

shall

within a discretionary exception listed under

discretion not to disclose the records.

records

fall

not be disclosed.

 .

C.

If

§ 5-14—3—4(b),

the undisclosed

it is

the agency’s

in

Once the agency has demonstrated that undisclosed;

within a discretionary exception under Section 4ib), the burden shifts to
the

complaining party to demonstrate that the agency’s denial of
arbitrary or capricious.

l.

C. § 5—14—3—9(g).

patently unreasonable and

is

An

made without

arbitrary

his

access to those records

and capricious decision

consideration of the facts and
2

is

was

one whichiis

in total

disregard of

 /

the circumstances and lacks any basis which might lead a reasonable person to the same
conclusion. A.B.

v.

State,

949 N.E.2d 1204, 1217

(Ind. 2011).

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the following individual case records are

exempt from

disclosure on the grounds stated:

Reports of physical or mental examihations submitted to the Court in
connection with sentencing (declared confidential ,by statute, l. C. § 35—38—
1—13, therefore,

exempted pursuant to

Ind.

Admin.

R.-

9(G)(2)(b)

and

LC. § 5—14—

3-4(a)(1));

Mental Health Consultation Requests and Psychiatric Evaluation documents
(declared confidential by statute,

pursuant to

Ind.

Admin.

 .

C.

R. 9(G)(2)(b)

Also exempted pursuant to

l.

§ 16—39—3—10, therefore, exempted

and

Pre—Sentence Investigation Reports and

R.

Law enforcement

C. § 5—14—3—4(a)(1)

and

(9));

all

accompanying memoranda (declared

C § 35—38—1-13, therefore, exempted pursuant
C. § 5—14—3—4(a)(1));
9(G)(2)(b) and

confidential by statute,

to Ind. Admin.

l.

C. § 5—14—3-4(b)(6);

l.

l.

lncident/Investigation Reports

and

Supplemental case investigatory records (exempted pursuant to

Ind.

Code §

5-

14—3—4(b)(1);

Witness

which include identifying information and addresses (exempted
Ind. Admin. R. 9(G)(2)(g)(i);

Lists

pursuant to

Juror and victim identification documents which include addresses; juror
deliberation notes and questions (exempted pursuant to Ind. Admin.

R.

9(G)(2)(i);

Research and
Ind.

The Court

Admin.

judicial notes;

work product of court

staff

(exempted pursuant to

R. 9(G)(2)(i);

reiterates that although trial evidence

is

accessible under Ind. R. Trial

P.

43(E),

those materials are subject to the same scrutiny and confidentiality analysis as provided by

Admin.

R. 9(G).

the Court

After thorough review of the exhibits admitted

now finds that the trial

exhibits, except for the herein
3

in

the

trial

below

Ind.

of Anthony Royer,

identified exhibits,

may

 be viewed by the Petitioner by appointment only, during regular business hours, at the
convenience

of,

and under the supervision

Pursuant t0

exhibits

Ind.

Admin.

of,

R. 9(G)(2)(4),

on the basis that the public interest

and release of these highly

grisly

the Court Reporter.

the Court'hereby excludes the following

will

trial

be substantially served by prohibiting access

and sensitive exhibits could create a

significant risk of

harm to

the victim’s family and/or other persons.
—

State’s Exhibits 3-9; State’s Exhibits 11—14;

and State’s

Exhibits 27—29

(photos of the deceased victim)
Accordingly, the Court hereby

copies of those records

in

the case

ORDERS the

file,

including the Chronological Case

documents except those deemed to be
Christian Sheckler of the South

Further, Petitioner

Circuit

Clerk of the Court to provide access to ahd

confidential by this

Amended

Bend Tribune as requested by him

may view the

trial

Summary and

all

Order, to the Petitioner

at his cost.

exhibits currently in the custody of the Elkhart

Court Reporter except for those hereinabove specified. Said access must be by

appointment
supervision

only, during regular business hours, at the

of,

convenience

of,

and under the

the Court Reporter.

I

fl;

DATED

THIS'

5

:30

DAY OF MAY, 2018.

WM @fl/flm

HBn. Teresa

L.

Cataldo, Judge

Elkhart Superior Court 3