In re Yoder, 2016 Ohio 7190

In 2002 Jason M. Yoder used the Internet to solicit sex from someone he believed to be under 16; the person was an undercover police officer. Yoder pled guilty to one count of importuning (R.C. 2907.07(E)(2)), a fifth-degree felony.
In 2016 Yoder applied to have the conviction sealed (expunged) under Ohio's expungement statute (R.C. 2953.36/2953.32); the trial court denied the application.
The trial court relied on R.C. 2953.36(F), which precludes sealing convictions for offenses "in circumstances in which the victim of the offense was less than sixteen years of age."
Yoder contended the statute did not apply because the person he solicited was an adult police officer posing as a minor (i.e., there was no actual victim under 16).
The State argued the legislative purpose and related sexual-offender decisions treated solicitations of undercover officers posing as minors the same as solicitations of actual minors and thus ineligible for sealing.
The court of appeals reversed: it read R.C. 2953.36(F) according to its plain language and held the statute applies only where the victim actually was under 16, so Yoder’s conviction was not statutorily ineligible for sealing. The case was remanded for the trial court to determine eligibility and exercise its discretion under R.C. 2953.32(C)(1).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2953.36(F) bars sealing when the defendant solicited an undercover officer posing as a minor	State: statute should be construed to bar sealing of importuning convictions even when the victim was an undercover officer (policy/public‑safety reasons)	Yoder: the statute only bars sealing where the victim actually was under 16; an adult officer posing as a minor is not a victim under 16	Court held R.C. 2953.36(F) requires the victim to actually be under 16; statute does not bar sealing here
Whether courts may expand unambiguous statutory text for policy reasons	State: prior cases and public‑safety policy support broader reading	Yoder: courts must follow the statute’s plain language; expungement is remedial and construed liberally	Court held it may not add to unambiguous statutory language; policy cannot override text

State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498 (2009) (standard of review for questions of law in expungement/statutory interpretation)
State ex rel. Gains v. Rossi, 86 Ohio St.3d 620 (1999) (expungement statutes construed liberally as remedial)
Barker v. State, 62 Ohio St.2d 35 (1980) (expungement is an act of grace; not an absolute right)
State v. Heaton, 108 Ohio App.3d 38 (12th Dist.) (same remedial/lenient construction principle for expungement)
State v. Aguirre, 144 Ohio St.3d 179 (2014) (courts should not alter unambiguous statutes based on policy)