104 A.3d 817
Del.2014Background
- Fuller, a juvenile, had two prior delinquency adjudications (age 12 for criminal mischief; age 14 for theft).
- As an adult (18–21), Fuller committed three Title 21 motor-vehicle offenses (headlamps ticket, careless driving, speeding).
- Fuller petitioned for expungement under 10 Del. C. §1018; the State did not oppose, but the Family Court denied expungement, relying on a finding that Title 21 offenses are “subsequent adult convictions.”
- The Family Court’s decision followed a prior M.S. v. State line of cases; it treated Title 21 offenses as disqualifying for expungement under §1018.
- The Delaware Supreme Court reversed, holding that “subsequent adult conviction” refers only to crimes listed in Titles 4, 7, 11, 16, or 23, and does not include Title 21 offenses, so Fuller’s expungement should be granted on remand.
- The dissent argues for a broader reading of “adult conviction,” but the majority adopts the narrower, statute-consistent approach to align with the statute’s text and purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'subsequent adult conviction' | Fuller argues Title 21 offenses aren’t disqualifying. | M.S./State argues Title 21 offenses count as 'subsequent adult convictions'. | Title 21 violations are not 'subsequent adult convictions' under §1018. |
| Scope of §1018’s listed titles | §1018 should not bar expungement for Title 21 offenses. | §1018 should apply to offenses listed in Titles 4, 7, 11, 16, 23 as bars. | Only offenses designated in Titles 4, 7, 11, 16, 23 bar expungement; Title 21 not included. |
| Role of records (DELJIS vs SBID) in petition | Criminal history database supports an expansive view. | Records used in §1018 align with listed titles and SBID/DELJIS structure. | SBID record omission of Title 21 supports the majority’s reading; DELJIS may include other info but is not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of H. Fletcher Brown Mansion v. City of Wilmington, 34 A.3d 1055 (Del. 2011) (statutory interpretation guiding avoidance of absurd results; policy context)
- Leatherbury v. Greenspun, 939 A.2d 1284 (Del. 2007) (statutory interpretation and purpose principles)
- Brown v. State, 36 A.3d 321 (Del. 2012) (policy and purpose in interpreting juvenile expungement)