State v. Malm

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 08-02-2017
  • Case #: A163047
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock, C.J.; & Sercombe, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 137.225(3), if the 'circumstances and behavior' of an applicant from the date of an arrest to the date of the hearing on a motion for setting aside the record of that arrest preclude an applicant from being granted relief, the court shall enter an appropriate order.

Defendant appealed the trial court's judgment denying Defendant’s motion to set aside and seal her arrest record after the charges for the underlying crimes were dismissed. Defendant assigned error to the lower court's denial of her motion. On appeal, Defendant argued: (1) the trial court's reliance on ORS 137.225(12) was erroneous because that statute was not applicable in this instance, and (2) State failed to provide evidence that Defendant's “character and behavior” between the date(s) of the arrest and the motion hearing precluded her from being granted relief. In response, State conceded that ORS 137.225(12) is not applicable to arrests, but rather only convictions of crimes. State also conceded that the Defendant's motion shouldn't be denied based on her 'character and behavior' during the aforementioned time period. Under ORS 137.225(3), if the 'circumstances and behavior' of an applicant from the date of an arrest to the date of the hearing on the motion for setting aside the record of that arrest preclude an applicant from being granted relief, the court shall enter an appropriate order. The Court agreed with State's contention that ORS 137.225(12) was not applicable, and that Defendant's “character and behavior” should not have prevented the granting of her motion. Accordingly, it held that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motion. Reversed and Remanded.

Advanced Search