26 N.W.3d 567
S.D.2025Background
- Jarrett Jones was acquitted of first-degree murder and related charges after a jury trial.
- Jones later sought an expungement of his arrest and trial records under SDCL 23A-3-27(3) and SDCL 23A-3-30.
- The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing, took judicial notice of the underlying file, and granted expungement.
- The State appealed, arguing the court failed to apply the statutory three-part, clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard and the public’s interests.
- The circuit court made written findings focused on stigma and Jones’s acquittal, but the State contends those findings do not support the statutory standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the expungement statute requires clear and convincing evidence of three standards | Jones asserts that expungement follows acquittal and the public interest supports sealing records. | State contends the court failed to apply SDCL 23A-3-30’s three-part clear-and-convincing standard (ends of justice, public, defendant). | Abuse of discretion; failed to apply three-part standard. |
| Whether acquittal alone justifies expungement under SDCL 23A-3-30 | Jones argues acquittal creates presumption in favor of expungement to reduce stigma. | State argues acquittal is not a categorical entitlement; must prove public ends by clear and convincing evidence. | Not a categorical entitlement; must prove public ends by clear and convincing evidence. |
| What factors may illuminate the 'ends of justice' and 'best interest of the public' | Jones emphasizes stigma reduction and personal interests. | State urges consideration of public access, open records policy, and adverse consequences. | Court must consider individualized factors; explicit factors identified for public interest guidance. |
| Whether the circuit court's written findings support the expungement | Jones notes findings reflect public interest and stigma. | State argues findings misstate standard and rely on acquittal rather than public interest. | Written findings do not satisfy the statutory burden; abuse of discretion. |
| What guidance should this decision provide for future expungement determinations | Jones seeks clearer articulation of public-interest factors favoring expungement. | State requests adherence to statutory standards and caution against routine expungements post-acquittal. | Court provides framework: focus on public interest, ends of justice, and individualized circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Long v. State, 904 N.W.2d 358 (S.D. 2017) (abuse of discretion standard; treatment of expungement burden)
- Pieper v. Pieper, 841 N.W.2d 781 (S.D. 2013) (burden of proof on discretion in family-like contexts)
- In re Guardianship of Flyte, 19 N.W.3d 513 (S.D. 2025) (standard of review for factual findings and de novo legal questions)
- In re Jarman, 860 N.W.2d 1 (S.D. 2015) (expungement-related considerations and character evidence after acquittal)
- Carroccia, 817 N.E.2d 572 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004) (factors for expungement considerations, including adverse consequences)