Expunging Acquittals
 In Ohio, there are two types of expungements. One is to expunge a conviction for a felony or a misdemeanor, and the other is to expunge the record of an acquittal. An acquittal is a finding by the trial court that the prosecutor failed to prove the charges against you. In plainer terms, it is a "not guilty" verdict.
Many people are happy with a "not guilty" verdict until they realize that the fact that they were previously charged with a heinous crime is still on the record out there. Thus, if you were charged with rape and kidnapping and acquitted, there will still be those out there (like prospective employers doing a background search on you as a potential employee) who might either hold the unproven charges against you, or who might just simply not want to take a chance.
Thus, Ohio citizens have the right under Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.32(B)(1) to petition the court in which they were found "not guilty" to seal the records of the proceedings entirely. But that does not mean that they have a right to get such records sealed. In City of Pepper Pike v. Doe (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 374 at 377, the Ohio Supreme Court observed that "[t]ypically, the public interest in retaining records of criminal proceedings, and making them available for legitimate purposes, outweighs any privacy interest the defendant may assert."
|
| However, the interest of the person charged and acquitted must still at least be considered, as there will obviously be some exceptions to the rule. In the case of In re Dumas, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 3315 (July 17, 2007) Franklin Co. App. No. 06 AP 1162, the trial court held that in all cases involving charges for first and second degree felonies for which the petitioner was acquitted (the most serious charges in Ohio criminal law), the interest of the state of Ohio automatically outweighs any privacy interest that any petitioner anywhere could possibly put forth. |
However, Ohio's Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling and held a trial court commits reversible error when it does not weigh the requisite interests of petitioner and the state. The Tenth District Court further held that nothing in Ohio Revised Code Section 2953.52 makes an applicant for expungement per se ineligible for sealing such records.
This ruling is line with State v. Berry (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 250 at 253 wherein Ohio's Second Appellate District ruled that a trial judge commits error when he or she automatically refuses to seal the record of any sex offense charges upon which the Defendant was found not guilty.
Of course, just because the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Dumas reversed the trial court's ruling, this did not mean that the trial court was required to grant the sealing of the record. It only meant that the trial court had to hold a hearing on the matter in which the petitioner's interests were concerned. The Tenth District Court pointed out that:
"In deciding as such, we make no conclusions as to whether the trial court should grant appellant's application to seal after a weighing of the requisite factors, and we simply sustain appellant's single assignment of error. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, and we remand this cause to that court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion."
Continue on to our complete guide to Ohio expungement law
|