State v. J.B.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that R.C. 2953.32 does not prohibit a trial court from considering the number and nature of an applicant’s misdemeanor convictions when deciding whether to seal conviction records. The court also held that the State’s failure to object does not prevent the trial court from considering the government’s interest in maintaining those records. Concluding that the First District improperly substituted its judgment for that of the trial court, the court reversed in part and reinstated the trial court’s denial of J.B.’s applications in five cases.

Holdings

1. R.C. 2953.32 does not prohibit a trial court from considering the number of an applicant's convictions when determining whether the applicant has demonstrated rehabilitation or when balancing the applicant's interests against the governmental interest in maintaining the records.
2. R.C. 2953.32 does not prohibit a trial court from considering the nature of an applicant's convictions when weighing the applicant's interest in sealing records against the governmental interest in keeping them public.
3. The State's failure to object to an application to seal does not relieve the trial court of its duty to consider and weigh the governmental interest in maintaining the records, and the statute does not place a burden on the State to submit evidence concerning the application.
4. The First District improperly substituted its judgment for that of the trial court. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying J.B.'s applications because its conclusions regarding rehabilitation and the competing governmental and applicant interests were not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether R.C. 2953.32 permits a trial court to consider the number of an applicant's convictions when determining rehabilitation and weighing the applicant's interest in sealing records against the governmental interest in maintaining them.
2. Whether R.C. 2953.32 permits a trial court to consider the nature of an applicant's convictions and the governmental interest in maintaining public records even when the State does not object to the application.
3. Whether the First District improperly substituted its judgment for that of the trial court while applying abuse-of-discretion review.

Disposition

reversed_in_part