State v. Dye (Slip Opinion), 152 Ohio St. 3d 11

Colton Dye was charged after a March 21, 2015 incident; the state dismissed the complaint without prejudice on May 5, 2015.
On June 23, 2015, Dye applied to seal the official records under R.C. 2953.52; the trial court denied the application because the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed, reading R.C. 2953.52 to require that the statute of limitations expire before sealing records in a dismissal without prejudice.
The Fifth District certified a conflict with an Eighth District decision (State v. C.K.) that held the statute-of-limitations expiration is irrelevant to the general sealing analysis under R.C. 2953.52(B)(4).
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the conflict and considered whether R.C. 2953.52 requires the statute of limitations to expire before a court may seal records of a case dismissed without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2953.52 requires the statute of limitations to expire before sealing records of a dismissal without prejudice	Dye: statute only requires the court to determine whether the limitations period has expired, but does not bar sealing if it has not; relevance of expiration is limited to DNA-specific provisions	State: R.C. 2953.52(B)(4) and (B)(2) compel calculation of limitations before sealing; policy and statutory language require waiting	Court held a determination of the statute-of-limitations expiration is required but not dispositive; a court may seal records before the limitations period expires (R.C. 2953.52(B)(4) does not require expiration)

(No decisions with official reporter citations are cited as controlling authority in the opinion.)