State v. G.H., 2023 Ohio 3269

G.H. pleaded guilty in 2016 to an amended first-degree misdemeanor assault (originally charged as domestic violence) and was placed on one year of community control with a no-contact order.
In 2017 G.H. pled no contest to violating a protection order for contacting the same victim; he was again sentenced to community control and electronic monitoring.
In November 2022 G.H. applied to seal three records; the court granted sealing of a 1999 misdemeanor drug-possession case but denied sealing of the 2016 assault and 2017 protection-order-violation records.
At the sealing hearing G.H. was absent, submitted no affidavit, and the only evidence was a probation report showing no new offenses since 2017; the county prosecutor did not object, the city prosecutor objected but offered no reasons.
The trial court denied sealing of the two later convictions citing (1) "insufficient demonstration of rehabilitation"—pointing to the proximity and nature of the offenses—and (2) that the government’s interest in keeping records public outweighed G.H.’s interest.
The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by relying improperly on the nature/number of eligible offenses and by failing to identify any governmental need to justify keeping the records open.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court reasonably found G.H. not rehabilitated	Convictions (assault then protection-order violation within a year) show insufficient rehabilitation	Probation report shows no offenses since 2017; eligible under statute; county prosecutor did not oppose sealing	Reversed — court abused discretion; nature/proximity of eligible offenses alone cannot be sole basis for denying rehabilitation finding
Whether the government’s interest outweighs applicant’s right to seal when prosecutor offers no articulated need	The seriousness and violent nature of the offenses justify keeping records public	No government interest was articulated; applicant’s interest (employment/visa) and lack of recent offenses weigh in favor	Reversed — court erred by relying solely on offense seriousness without a demonstrated governmental need to keep records public

State v. Sager, 131 N.E.3d 335 (Ohio App. 2019) (standard of appellate review for sealing decisions).
State v. Boykin, 4 N.E.3d 980 (Ohio 2013) (sealing is legislative grace).
Johnson v. Abdullah, 187 N.E.3d 463 (Ohio 2021) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained).
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (definition of abuse of discretion).
State v. A.S., 199 N.E.3d 994 (Ohio App. 2022) (trial court may not deny sealing solely on offense nature when prosecutor offers no need).
State v. Haney, 590 N.E.2d 445 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) (applicant bears burden to show interests at least equal to governmental interests).
State v. Garry, 877 N.E.2d 755 (Ohio App. 2007) (government must articulate why records should remain public).