State v. Malo, 469 P.3d 982

Background

Chad Malo was charged with one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old after allegations by a 17-year-old; a preliminary hearing judge bound him over for trial.
The State later dismissed the charge without prejudice because the alleged victim became medically unavailable for trial; Malo did not oppose dismissal or seek dismissal with prejudice.
Seven months later Malo petitioned to expunge the arrest; the State conceded it was unlikely to refile but formally objected, citing two other pending/previous prosecutions in Kane and Davis counties involving alleged sexual misconduct with minors.
At the expungement hearing the district court considered the preliminary-hearing record and the other prosecutions; Malo did not object to the court’s consideration of the expunged matters and argued the presumption of innocence and low likelihood of refiling.
The district court denied expungement, finding Malo failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that expungement was not contrary to the public interest, relying principally on the bind-over/probable-cause determination and the Kane/Davis prosecutions.
Malo appealed; the Utah Supreme Court reviewed for abuse of discretion (with review of underlying facts for clear error and legal questions for correctness) and affirmed the denial.

Issues

Issue	Malo's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by considering the preliminary-hearing bind-over/probable-cause finding	Bind-over is based on a low threshold and credibility limits at preliminary hearings, so it should not be given weight in an expungement decision	Bind-over and the preliminary-hearing evidence are proper considerations in assessing public interest	Court: No error; district court may consider bind-over and preliminary-hearing evidence when exercising expungement discretion
Whether the court improperly relied on other (expunged) prosecutions	Malo argued those cases had been expunged and he never convicted; their prior expungement undermines their probative value	State relied on those prosecutions to show public-interest concerns	Court: Malo forfeited this argument by not preserving it below; regardless, the district court’s reliance did not amount to reversible error
Whether the court should have discounted the State’s objection because the State wouldn’t refile	Because the State conceded it was unlikely to refile, its objection should not be considered	The Expungement Act allows prosecutors to file objections and participate; the "good faith to refile" provision did not apply here	Court: The statute permits the State to object and be heard; mere lack of intent to refile does not bar consideration of an objection
Whether the district court gave inadequate weight to the presumption of innocence	Malo: Presumption of innocence + no refiling means expungement must be granted; otherwise burden is nullified	State: Presumption of innocence does not eliminate petitioner’s burden to show expungement is not contrary to public interest	Court: No abuse of discretion; presumption of innocence alone was insufficient to carry Malo’s burden under the Expungement Act

Key Cases Cited

State v. Chambers, 533 P.2d 876 (Utah 1975) (discretionary nature of expungement decisions)
Commonwealth v. Giulian, 141 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016) (expungement viewed in light of humanitarian/practical objectives)
State v. Schmidt, 356 P.3d 1204 (Utah 2015) (probable-cause standard at preliminary hearings)
State v. Virgin, 137 P.3d 787 (Utah 2006) (limits on credibility findings at preliminary hearings)
Arnold v. Grigsby, 417 P.3d 606 (Utah 2018) (standards of review for expungement-related findings)
Bryner v. Cardon Outreach, LLC, 428 P.3d 1096 (Utah 2018) (statutory interpretation: plain language controls)
Garrard v. Gateway Fin. Servs., Inc., 207 P.3d 1227 (Utah 2009) (statutory-construction principles)
State v. Johnson, 416 P.3d 443 (Utah 2017) (preservation rule for appellate review)