State v. Schuster, 2013 Ohio 452

Schuster caused a fatal vehicular crash in 2002 after a marijuana-related urine screen; the state did not use that screen in prosecution.
Schuster pleaded no contest to vehicular manslaughter (misdemeanor, second degree) and was sentenced to jail, license suspension, 80 hours of community service, and probation.
In 2004, the license suspension was terminated at the defendant’s request.
In 2011, Schuster sought to seal his conviction under R.C. 2953.32; the state opposed citing potential greater liability under current law and non-expungability of such offenses.
A hearing occurred; the court denied sealing in 2012, finding lack of rehabilitation and public interest in maintaining records outweighed the defendant’s interest in sealing.
Schuster appeals, arguing the court abused its discretion and improperly considered evidence outside statutory criteria.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion denying expungement	Schuster	Schuster	No abuse; court weighed R.C. 2953.32(C) factors and made adequate findings
Whether court erred by considering marijuana use outside statutory criteria	State	Schuster	No error; court may consider surrounding circumstances and rehabilitation standards

State v. Futrall, 123 Ohio St.3d 498 (2009) (expungement eligibility requires statutory compliance and rehabilitation focus)
State v. Hamilton, 75 Ohio St.3d 636 (1996) (expungement is a privilege; must meet statutory criteria)
State v. Mastin, 83 Ohio App.3d 814 (1992) (trial court discretion in sealing orders; public interest factors)
State v. McGinnis, 90 Ohio App.3d 479 (1993) (broad discretion to deny expungement under 2953.32(C))
State v. Poole, 2011-Ohio-2956 (5th Dist. 2011) (trial court must make findings under 2953.32(C)(1); not automatic denial)
State v. Auge, 2002-Ohio-3061 (10th Dist. 2002) (rehabilitation evidence essential; court’s assessment of credibility)