State v. Pace, 2016 Ohio 1158

In 2012 Walter Pace shot and killed two dogs that had been on his property; he pleaded no contest to two first-degree misdemeanors under R.C. 959.131.
He was fined, served 30 days house arrest, and completed one year of probation.
Pace moved to have his convictions expunged under R.C. 2953.32; the prosecutor filed a written objection.
At the expungement hearing the prosecutor and the dogs' owners argued Pace remained a risk because he killed the dogs out of anger and continues to have recurring problems with trespassing dogs.
Pace asserted the convictions burden his ability to hunt and purchase firearms (claims not verified at hearing) and said he regularly contacts the dog warden about stray dogs on his property.
The trial court denied the expungement, finding Pace failed to show rehabilitation or that his interest in sealing outweighed the government’s interest; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in denying expungement under R.C. 2953.32	State argued expungement should be denied because the offenses’ nature and ongoing facts suggest a risk of recurrence	Pace argued sealing is warranted because he completed sentence and the conviction burdens his ability to hunt/purchase firearms and enjoy his property	No abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably found Pace not rehabilitated to its satisfaction and state’s need for record outweighed his interest

State v. Hilbert, 145 Ohio App.3d 824 (Ohio App. 2001) (discusses standards for appellate review of trial court decisions)
Ferranto, 112 Ohio St. 667 (Ohio 1925) (classic formulation of "abuse of discretion")
State v. Thomas, 64 Ohio App.2d 141 (Ohio App. 1979) (expungement is a privilege, not a right)