268 A.3d 58
Vt.2021Background
- In April 2020 A.P. and Z.P. were criminally charged (including transferred juvenile charges for Z.P.); the Attorney General prosecuted the matters.
- The State dismissed all charges without prejudice on December 30, 2020.
- Defendants moved to seal their records under 13 V.S.A. § 7603(a); the superior court ordered sealing on January 28, 2021.
- Two public-records requests for case materials were pending when the sealing orders issued; the State sought reconsideration to delay sealing so it could respond to those requests, but the superior court denied relief.
- Defendants then moved to expunge records under § 7603(g); the State opposed expungement while litigation over the public-records requests remained unresolved.
- The superior court denied expungement, holding § 7603(g) applies only when there was an arrest/citation but no subsequent charge; the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a hearing under § 7603(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of 13 V.S.A. § 7603(g): who may petition for sealing/expungement | State conceded on appeal that the superior court erred; § 7603(g) can apply beyond mere arrest/citation circumstances | § 7603(g) permits anyone charged but not convicted to petition “at any time” for sealing/expungement of the criminal-history record related to that arrest/citation | Reversed: § 7603(g)’s plain language allows persons charged (but not convicted) to petition for expungement at any time; charges related to an arrest/citation fall within the statute’s scope |
| Right to a hearing under § 7603(b) when the State objects | The State objected to immediate expungement pending public-records litigation and argued interests-of-justice consideration weighed against expungement | Defendants argued that § 7603(b) requires a hearing when a party objects to expungement | Remanded: court must hold a § 7603(b) hearing to determine whether expungement serves the interests of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Berard, 211 Vt. 39 (2019) (statutory interpretation standard and de novo review)
- Flint v. Dep’t of Lab., 205 Vt. 558 (2017) (apply plain meaning when statute is clear)
- Baldauf v. Vt. State Treasurer, 255 A.3d 731 (2021) (interpret subsections harmoniously; presume Legislature’s word choice intentional)
- Weale v. Lund, 180 Vt. 551 (2006) (consider statute title in construing intent)