Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Expungement: prosecutorial discretion?

There was an interesting case out of the 8th a couple of weeks ago on expungement.  As most lawyers know, the expungement statutes have been substantially whittled down over the last decade or so:  the number of crimes which can be expunged have been greatly reduced, and the requirements for obtaining expungement -- the definition of "first offender" status, for example -- have been made much more restrictive.  And every lawyer around here knows that the county prosecutor's office is uncompromisingly diligent in enforcing the limitations of the statute.

Two weeks back, in State v. Boddie, the court reversed a trial court's grant of an expungement, but far more interesting than what the court did is what it said.  The result was compelled by the fact that the trial court had not conducted a hearing on the application, and the statute specifically requires that.  But the state had also appealed on the grounds that the defendant didn't qualify as a first offender, because he had "subsequent misdemeanor convictions for drug abuse and 'open container prohibited' in the City of Cleveland." 

Judge McMonagle, writing the court's unanimous opinion, found that there was "no evidence in the record to support that," but then went on to suggest that maybe it shouldn't matter anyway.  After noting that "expungement is an act of grace created by the state" and that "the expungement provisions are remedial in nature and must be liberally construed to promote their purposes," Judge McMonagle suggested that perhaps the prosecutors office should take that into consideration:

We note further that whether to prosecute and what charges to file are decisions that generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion. A prosecutor should remain free to exercise his or her discretion to determine the extent of the societal interest in prosecution. This discretion is no less important when applied to issues such as expungement.

That's a gutsy decision.  Nobody ever lost an election by being labeled as hard on crime, and there's no question that the reduction of the expungement remedy reflects that.  But whether any societal interest is served by requiring someone to drag a felony record around for the rest of his life simply because he happened to subsequently get busted with pot or an open bottle of beer is a legitimate question, and kudos to the court for putting that question in play.

Search

Recent Entries

  • September 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Prior consistent statements, whether State v. Hand is applied retroactively, and a big Coming Attraction
  • September 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Looking back at Melendez-Diaz, and the 8th goes 0 for 2 in the Supreme Court
  • September 8, 2017
    Friday Roundup
    Pro bono work, screwed-up appeals, and is Subway shorting their customers?
  • September 5, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    The barriers to expungement, jury verdict forms, and hybrid representation
  • August 31, 2017
    Constructive possession
    Constructive possession is 9/10ths of the law
  • August 29, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A traffic stop found Samson Primm in possession of a few grams of marijuana, but he hires a lawyer and files a motion to suppress the stop. On the day of trial, the City asks to dismiss the case. Primm...
  • August 28, 2017
    Truth in plea bargaining
    So I got a brochure last week from Judge Donnelly over at the Common Pleas court. As you can see, it's a panel discussion on plea bargaining. The judge asked me to get out the word, so I just sort...
  • August 15, 2017
    Summer Break
    Got a bunch of stuff to do over the next couple weeks, and with the slowdown in the courts, it's a good time to take a break. I'll be back here on August 28. See you then....
  • August 11, 2017
    Friday Musings
    Drug trafficking, ADA lawsuit abuse, and e-filing
  • August 10, 2017
    Case Update
    Waiting on SCOTUS; two Ohio Supreme Court decisions