State v. E.C.

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed a consolidated appeal concerning the denial of petitions to expunge criminal-history records. The Court held that convictions for offenses committed by the petitioner as a minor were not eligible for expungement under 13 V.S.A. § 7602(a)(1)(B), and that § 7603(e)(1)(B) did not apply retroactively to earlier dismissals or permit expungement of charges dismissed without prejudice after the limitations period expired. The Court affirmed the orders but remanded for expungement of any convictions eligible under 2019, No. 167 (Adj. Sess.), § 31.

Holdings

1. Section 7602(a)(1)(B) permits expungement only when the conduct underlying the conviction is both no longer prohibited by law and no longer designated as a criminal offense. Conduct committed by a minor that is now treated as a delinquent act remains prohibited by law and therefore does not qualify under this provision.
2. Section 7603(e)(1) does not apply retroactively to charges that were dismissed or acquitted before the statutory amendment took effect.
3. A charge dismissed without prejudice does not become eligible for expungement under 13 V.S.A. § 7603(e)(1)(B) merely because the statute of limitations has expired.
4. A party's objection to expungement under § 7603 does not unilaterally block expungement. The court must conduct a hearing to determine whether sealing or expungement serves the interests of justice.
5. The Windham criminal division must expunge any of E.C.'s convictions eligible under 2019, No. 167 (Adj. Sess.), § 31.

Questions Presented

1. Whether convictions for conduct committed by a minor were eligible for expungement under 13 V.S.A. § 7602(a)(1)(B) because the conduct was no longer designated as a criminal offense.
2. Whether 13 V.S.A. § 7603(e)(1) applied retroactively to charges dismissed or acquitted before the relevant statutory amendments took effect.
3. Whether a charge dismissed without prejudice became eligible for expungement under § 7603(e)(1)(B) after the applicable statute of limitations expired.
4. Whether a party's objection could unilaterally block expungement under § 7603(e), or instead required a hearing to determine whether expungement served the interests of justice.
5. Whether the Windham criminal division should expunge convictions eligible under 2019, No. 167 (Adj. Sess.), § 31.

Disposition

remanded