State v. A.P.

On Appeal from Superior Court, Franklin Unit, Criminal Division Michael S. Kupersmith, J. (Ret.)

Thomas J. Donovan, Attorney General, and Ultan Doyle, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Ian P. Carleton and Sarah J. Heim of Sheehey Furlong & Behm P.C., Burlington, for Defendants-Appellants.

PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Eaton, Carroll and Cohen, JJ., and Treadwell, Supr. J., Specially Assigned

REIBER, C.J.

¶ 1. In these consolidated appeals, defendants A.P. and Z.P. challenge the superior court's denial of their motions for expungement. They argue that the court erred by interpreting 13 V.S.A. § 7603(g) to provide an avenue for expungement only to individuals who have been arrested or cited but not charged with criminal offenses by information or indictment. We agree, and reverse and remand.

¶ 2. On April 20, 2020, the Franklin County State's Attorney charged A.P. and Z.P. with several felony counts arising from an alleged assault and kidnapping. The State's Attorney

2

also filed a juvenile petition charging Z.P. with two counts of sexual assault; these charges were transferred to the criminal division. On June 8, the Attorney General's Office (hereinafter the State) took over prosecution of all three cases.

¶ 3. The State subsequently determined that it could not prove the charges against defendants beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed all charges without prejudice on December 30, 2020. On January 19, 2021, Z.P. filed a motion to seal his arrest record and any records relating to the arrest and subsequent dismissal of charges. See 13 V.S.A. § 7603(a) (providing that unless party objects in interests of justice, court shall order sealing of criminal history record related to citation or arrest within sixty days of final disposition of case if court does not find probable cause at arraignment or charge dismissed without prejudice, or at any time if parties so stipulate). A.P. likewise filed a motion to seal on January 27. The State did not oppose the sealing motions. The superior court ordered the records sealed on January 28.^[1]

¶ 4. During that same period, the State had received two public records requests seeking materials relating to defendants' cases-one from Vermont Public Radio (VPR) filed on January 4, 2021, and one from VTDigger filed on January 21. The State redacted identifying information from VPR's requested materials and was awaiting payment of copying costs to release the redacted documents to VPR, and was estimating the cost of responding to VTDigger's request. Both requests were pending at the time that the superior court sealed the records on January 28.

¶ 5. On January 29, one day after the superior court ordered the records sealed, the State filed motions with the court asking it to reconsider the sealing orders. The State asked for a delay in sealing within the sixty-day timeframe under § 7603(a) so that it could comply with the outstanding public records requests. The superior court denied these motions, explaining that the

3

matters had been sealed and no request to delay had been received before the court issued the sealing orders.

¶ 6. Subsequently, defendants filed motions under § 7603(g) to expunge all records relating to the charges. See 13 V.S.A. § 7603(g) (permitting person to file petition requesting expungement of criminal history record at any time and directing court to order expungement if in interests of justice or if parties so stipulate).

¶ 7. The State opposed these motions, primarily based on the outstanding public records request. The State indicated that it was "not opposed to the eventual expungement" of the records but wanted a court to determine whether it was required to disclose the requested records before they were expunged.^[2] The State explained that it had recently denied VTDigger's public records request for these cases, and VTDigger intended to appeal that denial to the civil division of the Washington Superior Court. See 1 V.S.A. § 319 (permitting appeal from denial of public records request to civil division). Until the court resolved that dispute, the State maintained that expungement was not in the interests of justice.

¶ 8. The superior court denied the expungement motions. It explained that the charges were dismissed without prejudice prior to trial and were therefore properly sealed under 13 V.S.A. § 7603(a) but ineligible for expungement under § 7603(e). See 13 V.S.A. § 7603(e) (providing that unless party objects in interests of justice, court shall order expungement of criminal history record related to citation or arrest within sixty days of final disposition of case if defendant acquitted or charge dismissed with prejudice, or at any time that parties so stipulate).

¶ 9. Defendants filed motions asking the court to reconsider its denial. Because the State dismissed the charges without prejudice and did not stipulate to expungement, defendants

4

conceded that expungement was inappropriate under § 7603(e) but clarified that they moved for expungement under § 7603(g). Subsection (g) is broader than subsection (e), they argued, as it provides for expungement "at any time" if the court finds that "expunging the record serves the interests of justice." Id. § 7603(g). Moreover, they contended that because the State opposed expungement, § 7603(b) required the court to hold a hearing before it could rule on the motion. See id. § 7603(b) ("If a party objects to . . . expunging a record pursuant to this section, the court shall schedule a hearing to determine if . . . expunging the record serves the interests of justice.").

¶ 10. The superior court denied defendants' motions for reconsideration. It concluded that § 7603(g) "applies if the only criminal history record in a criminal proceeding is arrest or citation" and "no prosecution follows, [so] no indictment or information is filed." If an indictment or information is filed, the court stated that other provisions of § 7603 may apply. The court reasoned that if defendants' reading of the statute was correct, then "[e]very criminal case would be eligible for expungement," rendering superfluous other provisions in § 7603 providing for expungement or sealing. And because the court concluded that the records were ineligible for expungement, it determined that defendants were not entitled to a hearing under § 7603(b).

¶ 11. Defendants appealed, ^[3] arguing that the superior court erroneously interpreted § 7603(g). They maintain that the court's interpretation contravenes the plain language of the statute, which permits an individual who has been charged but not convicted of a crime to petition for sealing or expungement "at any time." 13 V.S.A. § 7603(g). Further, they contend that the legislative history shows the Legislature's intent to provide an avenue for sealing or expungement at any time. The State agrees with defendants' argument and concedes that the superior court erred.

5

¶ 12. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Berard, 2019 VT 65, ¶ 7, 211 Vt. 39, 220 A.3d 759. The touchstone of this inquiry is legislative intent. Id. ¶ 12. "If the intent of the Legislature is apparent on the face of the statute because the plain language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we implement the statute according to that plain language." Flint v. Dep't of Lab., 2017 VT 89, ¶ 5, 205 Vt. 558, 177 A.3d 1080. We do not read statutory language in isolation; we read and construe together "the whole and every part of the statute, together with other statutes standing in pari materia with it, as parts of a unified statutory system." Berard, 2019 VT 65, ¶ 12 (quotation omitted).

¶ 13. Section 7603(g) provides:

A person may file a petition with the court requesting sealing or expungement of a criminal history record related to the citation or arrest of the person at any time. The court shall grant the petition and issue an order sealing or expunging the record if it finds that sealing or expunging the record serves the interests of justice, or if the parties stipulate to sealing or expungement of the record

13 V.S.A. § 7603(g). The statute defines "[c]riminal history record" as "all information documenting an individual's contact with the criminal justice system, including data regarding identification, arrest or citation, arraignment, judicial disposition, custody, and supervision." Id. § 7601(2).

¶ 14. We conclude that the plain language of § 7603(g) entitles any person who has been charged but not convicted of a crime to file a petition for expungement at any time. The statute...