“Interests of Justice” Is Not Much of a Reason to be Given an Expungement

State v. R.H.B.,, Minn.Ct.App., 12/5/2011, Review Granted, 2/28/12.  R.H.B.’s wife provided day care for a three month old, P.  The wife went shopping, leaving P in R.H.B’’s care.  When P’s mom showed up, she noticed scratches and bruises on P’s face and ears.  It turned out that P had suffered a subdural hematoma when R.H.B. had thrown P into the air but failed to catch him.

The state charged R.H.B. with third degree assault, later amended to first degree assault.  A jury acquitted R.H.B. on both counts.  R.H.B. petitioned for expungement of his record, which the trial court granted over the state’s objections. 

The trial court construed the petition as invoking the court’s statutory authority to expunge all records “if all pending actions or proceedings were resolved in favor of the petitioner.” Minn. Stat. § 609A.02, subd. 3 (2010).”  R.H.B. met that standard so the real question was whether the state could establish by clear and convincing evidence that the public’s interest in having the record available outweighs the petitioner’s interest in having that record sealed.

R.H.B. said that he wanted the expungment because “the interests of justice” required the court to grant it.  The court of appeals didn’t think that was any reason at all, so that there was really nothing for it to weigh.   Or, if it did weigh it then the state’s generic reasons in opposition – unsealed records are useful to cops, child protection said pretty much the same thing – trumps R.H.B’s generic reason.

Well, the supreme court has taken review.  The state had the  burden of establishing reasons that outweigh sealing the record, so the real fight may be whether the boiler plate that the state presented  here suffices, at least in the (empty) face of R.H.B’s boiler plate reasons.