State v. Tyler, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2001)
This text of State v. Tyler, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2001) (State v. Tyler, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2001)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appellant was charged with domestic violence, in violation of R.C.
Appellant appeals, raising one assignment of error:
THE COURT COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT'S APPLICATION TO SEAL OFFICIAL RECORDS AFTER A DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, WHERE THE INTEREST OF APPELLANT IN HAVING THE RECORDS SEALED WERE NOT OUTWEIGHED BY THE LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT IN MAINTAINING THOSE AS PUBLIC RECORDS.
Appellant's single assignment of error concerns the trial court's decision to deny his application to seal records of the dismissed assault and domestic violence charges.
R.C.
Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his application because it improperly concluded that his interests do not outweigh the government's interests. Plaintiff-appellee, the state of Ohio, concedes that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the application. Appellee bases its concession on its failure to advance the governmental interests when objecting to the application. However, despite appellee's concession, the trial court was not prohibited from denying appellant's application due to appellee's failure to advance the pertinent governmental interests. We have previously held that the trial court must consider the government's interests when ruling on an application to seal criminal case records regardless of the prosecutor's failure to object and advance such interests. See Haney, at 138.
Nonetheless, for the reasons noted below, we conclude that the trial court failed to properly balance the interests of appellant and the government when ruling on appellant's application. In denying the application, the trial court concluded:
The applicant does bear the burden of proof that his interests outweigh those of the State, and the Court finds that not to be the case here and will deny the application for sealing and expungement of this record.
After rendering the above decision, the trial court stated:
* * * [T]hese records are determined to be public for a reason in Ohio. There's a presumption to keep records public, and I want these records kept public * * *. And in my discretion, the interests of the State in maintaining it's [sic] public record as determined policy by the Ohio General Assembly outweighs the interests expressed by your client * * *.
By concluding that a presumption exists to keep records open, the trial court considered appellant's application in a light more favorable to the government's interests than the interests of appellant.
In Dayton v. Sheibenberger (1996),
* * * [T]he trial court is not to tip the balance in favor of the government when it is weighing the parties' relative interests. The court is to approach the parties' interests initially from an equal basis. * * * [Id.]
The holding in Sheibenberger is consistent with the language in R.C.
Because the decision in Sheibenberger is consistent with R.C.
Thus, based on the above, we sustain appellant's single assignment of error. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court and remand this cause to the trial court for a new hearing on appellant's application.
________________________ KENNEDY, J.
BOWMAN and LAZARUS, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Tyler, Unpublished Decision (6-28-2001), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tyler-unpublished-decision-6-28-2001-ohioctapp-2001.