Failure to Make Findings on Statutory Factors to be Considered in Juvenile Expungement Request Requires Remand of Grant of Expungement

In the Matter of the Welfare of:  J.T.L., Child, Minn.Ct.App., 12/28/2015.  The district court granted an expungement request by J.T.L. of his various criminal sexual conduct adjudications.  There's a statute for that, Minn.Stat. 260B.198, subd. 6(b).  This statute says that the court "shall consider" a laundry list of factors on the way to deciding whether expungement would yield a benefit to the child that outweighs the detriment to the public and public safety:

(b) In making a determination under this subdivision, the court shall consider:

(1) the age, education, experience, and background, including mental and emotional development, of the subject of the record at the time of commission of the offense;

(2) the circumstances and nature and severity of the offense, including any aggravating or mitigating factors in the commission of the offense;

(3) victim and community impact, including age and vulnerability of the victim;

(4) the level of participation of the subject of the record in the planning and carrying out of the offense, including familial or peer influence in the commission of the offense;

(5) the juvenile delinquency and criminal history of the subject of the record;

(6) the programming history of the subject of the record, including child welfare, school and community-based, and probation interventions, and the subject’s willingness to participate meaningfully in programming, probation, or both;

(7) any other aggravating or mitigating circumstance bearing on the culpability or potential for rehabilitation of the subject of the record; and

(8) the benefit that expungement would yield to the subject of the record in pursuing education, employment, housing, or other necessities. 

Well, it's a long list.  The trial judge adopted the proposed order by J.T.L.'s counsel which did not contain any specific findings regarding these factors.  The state appealed, saying that the failure to make such findings poisoned the grant of expungement.

The court of appeals agrees, concluding that "shall consider" really means "shall make findings about" each of the factors.  The court sends the case back to the trial court for a redo.