In re Kollman
210 N.J. 557
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Legislation amended expungement to broaden opportunities for one-time offenders with minor offenses after five years if public interest supports it.
- Kollman challenged a trial court denial of expungement for a third-degree CDS conviction after probation did not occur again and five years passed.
- Trial court denied, citing the relatively serious nature of ecstasy distribution and the public’s right to know; appellate panel agreed no abuse of discretion.
- New statute places burden on applicant to prove five-year criteria and public-interest finding; State bears burden only on statutory grounds for denial.
- Court must balance three factors—nature of offense, applicant’s conduct since conviction, and public-interest—when expungement is sought under the new prongs.
- Supreme Court remanded for the trial court to reassess the public-interest balancing in light of the clarified standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden to prove public interest? | Kollman: applicant must prove public interest after meeting objective criteria. | State: applicant must prove public interest, or otherwise State bears burden to oppose expungement. | Applicant bears burden to prove public interest. |
| Do five years, no new conviction, and public-interest finding apply to 2C:52-2(a)(2)? | Kollman satisfied five-year and no-new-conviction criteria; public interest must be weighed. | State may contest public-interest finding and rely on offense category and related factors. | Yes; five-year, no new conviction, and public-interest balancing apply. |
| What factors constitute 'nature of the offense' for public-interest analysis? | LoBasso allows considering details of offense, related charges, and undisputed facts. | Court may not rely on categorical prejudice about drug type to deny expungement. | Nature of offense includes facts, circumstances, and related, undisputed information; cannot be categorical. |
| How should 'character and conduct since conviction' be weighed? | Applicant’s rehabilitation and community service support expungement. | Prior conduct and seriousness of offense weigh against expungement. | Applicant’s post-conviction conduct is a central factor weighing toward expungement. |
| Role of 14(b) weighing of record availability under 2C:52-14 for new offenses? | Public-interest finding should be weighed against need for records, not automatically denied. | State can rely on grounds in 14(b) to argue against expungement. | Burden of persuasion on public-interest balancing remains with applicant; 14(b) considerations apply as an additional factor. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re LoBasso, 423 N.J. Super. 488 (App. Div. 2012) (guides factors for public-interest balancing and conduct since conviction)
- In re D.H., 204 N.J. 7 (Supreme Court 2010) (burdens shifting and evidentiary standards for expungement petitions)
- In re J.N.G., 244 N.J. Super. 605 (App. Div. 1990) (early articulation of burden and elements for expungement)
- XYZ Corp., 119 N.J. 416 (1990) (explanation of need for record availability versus expungement)
- State v. Brooks, 175 N.J. 215 (2002) (limits on inferring guilt and scope of evidentiary review)
- State v. Green, 62 N.J. 547 (1973) (evidentiary standards and reliance on proven facts)
- In re H.M.H., 404 N.J. Super. 174 (Ch. Div. 2008) (empirical limits on categorically excluding offenses from expungement)