In re T.B.
199 A.3d 744
N.J.2019Background
- New Jersey's drug court program supervises participants for up to five years with an intensive multidisciplinary team; successful graduates may apply to expunge their entire criminal record under N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(m)(1).
- The 2016 statute allows full-record expungement for drug court graduates but disqualifies those whose records "include a conviction for any offense barred from expungement pursuant to subsection b. or c. of N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2." N.J.S.A. 2C:35-14(m)(2).
- The central question: whether third- and fourth-degree drug sale convictions (subject to the public‑interest finding in N.J.S.A. 2C:52-2(c)(3)) are covered by the disqualification language in § 35-14(m)(2).
- Three graduates (T.B., J.N.-T., R.C.) with prior third‑degree convictions successfully completed drug court and sought expungement; trial court granted relief, the Appellate Division vacated, and the New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification.
- The Appellate Division had held that § 35-14(m)(2) "imports" the public‑interest standard from § 2C:52-2(c)(3) and that applicants bear the burden to prove expungement is in the public interest under Kollman.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division in part: it held § 35-14(m)(2) does require the public‑interest assessment for those convictions but adopted a different procedural approach for drug court graduates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 35-14(m)(2) import the § 2C:52-2(c)(3) public‑interest standard for 3rd/4th‑degree drug sale convictions? | Applicants: No — the disqualification applies only to offenses absolutely barred by category, not convictions subject to case‑by‑case public‑interest review. | State/AG: Yes — the statutory cross‑reference includes § 2C:52-2(c)(3) and its public‑interest requirement. | Held: Yes — plain language includes convictions barred under § 52-2(c), so the public‑interest finding applies. |
| Who bears the initial burden of proof to satisfy the public‑interest standard in drug court expungement cases? | Applicants: Burden should not be onerous; if any burden, it should shift to the State given prosecutors' role in drug court. | State/AG: Applicants must bear the burden as in Kollman to show expungement is in the public interest. | Held: Applicants receive a rebuttable presumption in their favor; State may rebut with evidence. |
| Are drug court graduates required to submit transcripts and presentence reports as in Kollman? | Applicants/ACLU: No — drug court streamlines procedure and should not require older transcripts; court familiarity suffices. | State/AG: Yes — Kollman requirements should apply; transcripts/reports help public‑interest assessment. | Held: Not routinely required — judges may request materials if needed, but graduates are generally not required to produce all old transcripts/reports. |
| Standard/process on remand and role of prosecutors | Applicants: District court/drug court judge familiar with participant can and should grant expungement absent an articulated public‑safety reason. | State: Prosecutors should be allowed to present disqualifying convictions/factors to oppose expungement under the public‑interest test. | Held: Remand to trial court; drug court graduates get a rebuttable presumption that expungement is consistent with public interest; prosecutors obligated to notify/present evidence to rebut. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.S., 223 N.J. 54 (detailing evolution of New Jersey expungement statutes)
- In re Kollman, 210 N.J. 557 (places public‑interest burden on applicant under general expungement statute)
- In re LoBasso, 423 N.J. Super. 475 (App. Div.) (factors to consider under public‑interest test)
- DiProspero v. Penn, 183 N.J. 477 (statutory‑interpretation principles)