Commonwealth v. Wallace, 45 A.3d 446

Appellant Mark Green seeks expungement of non-conviction arrest records from 19 arrests across multiple periods.
Record shows arrests from 1988–1992 with various charges; some transferred to family court or juvenile division; none show acquittals or convictions at that stage.
From 1992–2007 more arrests with a mix of guilty pleas, convictions, acquittals, dismissals, or withdrawals; several charges terminated in different ways.
Between 2010–2011 he moved to expunge non-conviction records; trial court denied; eight consolidated appeals followed.
Court applies Wexler balancing test (non-exhaustive factors) to determine expungement suitability; decision initially denied but remanded for clarification and hearing.
Court vacates denials and remands for a full record and application of Wexler factors to each non-conviction arrest record; adherence to due process for a potential hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Commonwealth failed to sustain retention of non-conviction records	Green contends Commonwealth bears burden to show retention outweighs right to expunge	Commonwealth asserts interest in accuracy and future policing justifies retention	Remand to reapply Wexler balancing with a clarified record
Whether the trial court properly conducted a Wexler balancing test	Balanced factors may favor expungement; prior opinions and evidence insufficiently weighed	Trial court appropriately weighed factors including Commonwealth's interest and Appellant's history	Remand for clarified record and full Wexler analysis
Whether a hearing was required for expungement consideration	Due process requires a hearing to present evidence on expungement	No explicit error in denial without a hearing given record complexities	Vacated orders; remanded for a hearing to determine eligibility and need for expungement

Commonwealth v. Waughtel, 999 A.2d 623 (Pa. Super. 2010) (balancing test governs expungement decisions)
Carlacci v. Mazaleski, 798 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2002) (expungement right adjunct of due process)
Wexler, 431 A.2d 877 (Pa. 1981) (non-exhaustive factors for expungement balancing)
D.M., 548 Pa. 131 (Pa. 1997) (automatic entitlement to expungement after acquittal; balancing concerns otherwise)
A.M.R., 887 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2005) (burden on Commonwealth when charges are withdrawn or nol pros)
Hanna, 964 A.2d 928 (Pa. Super. 2009) (remand for clarification of charge termination)
Rodland, 871 A.2d 216 (Pa. Super. 2005) (remand to determine eligibility with record clarity)
Moto, 23 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2011) (redefines expungement standards post-V.A.M.)
Lutz, 788 A.2d 993 (Pa. Super. 2001) (expungement considerations after plea/withdrawal)
V.G., 9 A.3d 222 (Pa. Super. 2010) (expunction when termination not by acquittal)