Summary
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Chad Malo’s petition to expunge a criminal record arising from charges that were dismissed without prejudice. The court held that the district court acted within its discretion by considering the preliminary-hearing bindover decision and evidence from other criminal cases, and that Malo failed to preserve his challenge to consideration of the expunged cases. The court also rejected Malo’s arguments concerning the State’s objection and the presumption of innocence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a district court may consider a defendant's bind-over order and evidence from a preliminary hearing when deciding whether expungement is in the public interest.
- Whether Malo preserved his challenge to the district court's consideration of previously expunged criminal cases.
- Whether the Utah Expungement Act prohibited the State from objecting to expungement absent a good-faith intent to refile the dismissed charge.
- Whether the presumption of innocence required expungement where charges were dismissed without prejudice and the State did not intend to refile.
Holdings
- A district court deciding an expungement petition may consider the fact that the petitioner was bound over for trial and may consider evidence presented at the preliminary hearing when evaluating whether expungement is contrary to the public interest.
- Malo failed to preserve his challenge to the district court's consideration of the previously expunged cases, and the court therefore declined to reach the issue absent a valid preservation exception.
- The Utah Expungement Act permits the prosecuting attorney to support or oppose an expungement petition, both orally and in writing, even when the State does not intend to refile the dismissed charges.
- The presumption of innocence does not automatically require expungement when charges are dismissed without prejudice and the State does not intend to refile; the petitioner still bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that expungement is not contrary to the public interest.
Key quotations
“To succeed before the district court on his expungement petition, Malo had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that:” (¶15)
“Thus, the Expungement Act clearly provides the State, acting through the prosecuting attorney, with the right to support or object to a petition for expungement, both orally and in writing.” (¶23)
“Thus, accepting Malo’s articulation of the presumption of innocence effectively means the elimination of a petitioner’s burden to show expungement is not contrary to the public interest anytime a case is dismissed without prejudice, and where there is no intention to refile.” (¶25)
Factual background
The State charged Malo with third-degree-felony unlawful sexual conduct with a seventeen-year-old. After a preliminary hearing at which the alleged victim testified, the district court found probable cause and bound Malo over for trial. The State later obtained dismissal without prejudice because the alleged victim was medically unavailable for trial, and it stated that there was not a high likelihood of refiling. When Malo sought expungement, the State objected and identified two other criminal prosecutions involving sexual misconduct with minors; the district court denied expungement because Malo failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that expungement was not contrary to the public interest.
Procedural history
The State charged Malo with unlawful sexual conduct with a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old. After a preliminary hearing, the district court bound him over for trial, but later dismissed the charge without prejudice when the alleged victim became medically unavailable for trial. Malo then petitioned for expungement. The district court denied the petition after considering the preliminary-hearing probable-cause determination, other sexual-misconduct prosecutions, the State's objection, and the public-interest requirement. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed.