State v. Herrick, 2020 Ohio 6917

In March 2015 Herrick was charged after driving his vehicle into a restaurant; one patron died. Charges included vehicular homicide, vehicular manslaughter, and failure to control.
Herrick pleaded no contest to vehicular manslaughter and failure to control; the vehicular homicide count was dismissed. He was convicted, placed on one year probation, and received a one-year license suspension.
After completing probation Herrick moved to seal the vehicular manslaughter conviction; the trial court denied the motion after an oral hearing at which the prosecutor did not appear (the judge referenced a written recommendation from the prosecutor that was not made part of the record).
This court previously reversed and remanded for the trial court to consider the substantive merits because Herrick was an eligible offender under R.C. 2953.32.
On remand the trial court again denied sealing, in part noting the fatality resulting from the offense; Herrick appealed, arguing the court relied solely on the nature of the offense.
The Eleventh District affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion because Herrick failed to identify specific economic, social, or legal harms that sealing would avoid and the court reasonably concluded the public interest outweighed his privacy interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Herrick's motion to seal solely because of the nature of the offense	The State (as reflected in the court’s reasoning) relied on the severity of the offense — including the death — as a legitimate reason to keep the record public	Herrick argued the court improperly denied sealing based only on the offense’s nature; once found eligible, the State must show an independent, legitimate governmental need beyond the charge itself	No. Court affirmed: Herrick failed to show specific harms from a public record; the court reasonably weighed privacy against public interest and did not abuse its discretion

State v. Simon, 87 Ohio St.3d 531 (2000) (expungement is a state-created privilege, not a right)
State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (1996) (expungement relief is discretionary and framed as a privilege)
Pepper Pike v. Doe, 66 Ohio St.2d 374 (1981) (purpose of sealing is to spare applicants economic, social, and legal consequences of disclosure)
State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Winkler, 149 Ohio App.3d 350 (1st Dist. 2002) (applicant’s privacy interests must be weighed against the public’s right of access)