Jason Taylor v. State of Indiana
7 N.E.3d 362
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Taylor pled guilty in 2004 to a Class D felony sexual misconduct with a minor, with an 18-month suspended sentence and probation.
- After successful probation, Taylor petitioned to enter judgment as a Class A misdemeanor.
- Indiana later enacted expungement provisions in 2013; Taylor sought expungement under 35-38-9-2.
- Trial court denied expungement, citing former 35-38-9-9(d) requiring victim-statement consideration.
- Statutory scheme: 35-38-9-2(d) mandates expungement when conditions are met, while 35-38-9-9(d) previously required consideration of victim statements; 2014 amendments clarified limits on such consideration.
- Court reversed, holding 35-38-9-2(d) mandatory and not rendered meaningless by 9(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 35-38-9-2(d) mandatorily expunges when conditions are met | Taylor; 2(d) uses ‘shall’ mandating expungement | State; 9(d) creates discretionary harm avoiding expungement | Yes; expungement required when conditions are met. |
| Whether former 35-38-9-9(d) destroys the mandatory effect of 2(d) | No conflict; provisions harmonizable | Victim statement can influence discretion where allowed | No conflict; 2(d) unambiguous; 9(d) applied to discretionary provisions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alden v. State, 983 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (mandatory language with expungement context; 'shall' = mandatory)
- Dykstra v. City of Hammond, 985 N.E.2d 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (statutory interpretation de novo; harmony of provisions)
- State v. Vankirk, 955 N.E.2d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (statutes in pari materia; harmonize for cohesive scheme)
- Klotz v. Hoyt, 900 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2009) (statutory interpretation principles; in pari materia guidance)
- E.H. v. State, 764 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (stigma of conviction; legislative policy of second chances)