State v. D.R.F., Minn.Ct.App., 4/25/2016. Back in 2012 the state charged D.R.F. with criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. In the run up to trial D.R.F. booked to Texas, California, maybe other places as well. It wasn't until January 2015 that the state could get its hands on him. D.R.F. went to trial on a consent defense and the jury acquitted him. D.R.F. then moved to expunge the record under both the expungement statute and the court's inherent authority. The trial court denied the motion on both grounds and D.R.F. appealed, but only on the expungement statute.
The statute, 609A.03, subd. 5(b), says that D.R.F.'s acquittal entitled him to the expungement unless the state established by clear and convincing evidence that the interests of the public and public safety outweigh the disadvantages to D.R.F. of not sealing the record. The statute goes on to list twelve factors, the last of which is the obligatory catch-all "whatever else you can think of" that the court is to consider in deciding whether the state has met this burden. The court made findings on all of these factors. When the court got to the catch all it threw in D.R.F.'s absconding before trial. The court of appeals knew of no authority to deny expungement essentially to punish D.R.F. for skipping out.
The trial court also threw in the possibility that should D.R.F. be charged with another crime in the future the judge in that new case would set the bail too low because of ignorance of the previous skipping and then D.R.F. would skip yet again. The court of appeals said that this was "simply too speculative to constitute clear-and-convincing evidence" to satisfy the state's burden.
Happy trails to R.D.F.
No comments:
Post a Comment