State v. [J.S.
97 N.E.3d 790
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2009 J.S. pled guilty to attempted assault (2nd‑degree misdemeanor); domestic‑violence charge was dismissed; sentence suspended with community control.
- In 2016 J.S. applied under R.C. 2953.32 to seal the conviction record, submitting an employer affidavit describing good character and a financial affidavit showing low income and underemployment.
- The State objected, arguing (without evidentiary support) that maintaining the record served law‑enforcement and arraignment/bond purposes for future domestic‑violence incidents.
- At a hearing the trial court denied the application, explaining it was not persuaded that J.S. showed the conviction actually affected her ability to move forward.
- J.S. appealed; the Tenth District majority reversed and remanded with instructions to order the conviction sealed, concluding the trial court applied an improper standard and gave weight to speculative state interests without evidence.
- A concurring/dissenting judge would have affirmed as within the trial court’s discretion, citing investigative and arraignment utility of prior violent‑offense records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (J.S.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court may require applicant to prove the conviction actually adversely affects them before sealing | R.C. 2953.32 does not require proof of an actual adverse effect; statute sets eligibility, rehabilitation, and a balancing test | Court should deny where applicant fails to show present, concrete harm from the record | Court held trial court erred: statute contains no requirement that applicant demonstrate actual adverse effect before sealing; requirement was improper and unreasonable |
| Whether the court must determine rehabilitation on the record | J.S. argued she demonstrated rehabilitation via affidavits and the State conceded rehabilitation was not disputed | State did not contest rehabilitation in the trial court and treated it as satisfied | Majority treated rehabilitation as established (and noted state conceded it); trial court’s lack of express finding was not fatal given record evidence |
| Whether the State’s speculative public‑safety/arraignment interest justified denial without evidence | J.S. argued State’s objections were hypothetical and unsupported by evidence; prosecutors retain access to sealed records per statute | State argued sealed record may hinder officers/judges in future domestic‑violence matters | Court held the State’s generalized, speculative concerns—unsupported by evidence—could not outweigh J.S.’s interests; prosecutor access statutes further weakened the State’s position |
| Appropriate remedy when trial court applied improper reasoning and relied on speculation | J.S. sought reversal and an order sealing the conviction | State implicitly sought affirmance or remand for further factfinding | Court reversed and remanded with instructions to order the conviction sealed under R.C. 2953.32 |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. State, 62 Ohio St.2d 35 (1980) (remedial provisions for sealing criminal records should be liberally construed)