Expunging The Records When Defendant Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
|
| If you are found not guilty by reason of insanity, and later you are cured of your mental problems, you may wish to have the record of your case expunged. R.C. 2953.52 provides that "any person who is found not guilty of an offense by a jury or a court or who is the defendant named in a dismissed complaint, indictment, or information, may apply to the court for an order to seal his official records in the case."
In one Ohio case, a suicidal woman tried to get her mother to give her a gun to shoot her. Mom called the police, and when the officers came round, Ms. Schwartz tried to take a police officer's gun to kill herself. She was charged with aggravated robbery, but was found not guilty by reason of insanity. She then moved for the Court to expunge the records of her case. |
The prosecutors in the case argued against it and the expungement motion was denied. But Ms. Schwartz was not finished, and she later moved again to have the records expunged, arguing that her improved mental condition warranted the expungement. This time the trial court granted the expungement and the prosecutors appealed, arguing that the concept of res judicata barred the second expungement application, and that R.C. 2953.52 did not apply to findings of not guilty by reason of insanity.
But Ohio's First District Court of Appeals disagreed with both arguments. Res judicata is a legal concept that prohibits a person or party from bringing the same cause of action over and over again. The principle of res judicata prevents the relitigation of an issue where a valid final judgment has been rendered upon the merits of a case. But res judicata does not bar subsequent proceedings where there is a showing of change of circumstances. Since Ms. Schwartz argued that her improved mental condition since the last expungement application was a change in circumstances, Ohio's First District Court of Appeals held that res judicata did not bar the trial court from considering the second expungement application.
The Court also found that R.C. 2953.52 did apply to findings of not guilty by reason of insanity. The Court reasoned that despite the fact that Ms.Schwartz was committed to a mental institution, the successful insanity plea resulted in a "not guilty" finding by the Court. Not guilty means not guilty, therefore this particular section of the expungement statute applied to her case. The case on this is State v. Schwartz, 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 2954 (June 24, 2005) Hamilton Co. App. No. C-040390.
Continue on to our complete guide to Ohio expungement law
|