Can Utah courts consider expunged cases in expungement proceedings? State v. Malo Explained

In State v. Malo, the Utah Supreme Court addressed several important issues regarding expungement proceedings, providing guidance on what evidence district courts may consider when determining whether expungement serves the public interest.

Background and Facts

Chad Malo was charged with unlawful sexual conduct with a 16- or 17-year-old after allegations that he had sex with a 17-year-old victim. At the preliminary hearing, the victim testified about the alleged assault, and despite some credibility concerns, the district court found probable cause and bound Malo over for trial. However, shortly before trial, the victim experienced serious medical complications that made her unavailable to testify, prompting the State to dismiss the case without prejudice. Seven months later, Malo filed an expungement petition.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented four main arguments: (1) whether the district court could rely on the preliminary hearing bindover in denying expungement; (2) whether the court could consider evidence from expunged cases involving similar charges; (3) whether the court should have considered the State’s objection when the State had no intention to refile; and (4) whether the court gave insufficient weight to Malo’s presumption of innocence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial, holding that district courts have broad discretion in expungement proceedings. The Court ruled that considering preliminary hearing evidence and bindovers is appropriate when evaluating the public interest. Regarding the expunged cases, the Court found Malo failed to preserve this argument by not objecting at trial and instead using those expungements to support his own case. The Court also clarified that the Expungement Act allows prosecutors to object to expungement petitions regardless of intent to refile, and that a mere invocation of presumption of innocence is insufficient to establish that expungement serves the public interest.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of preservation of error in expungement proceedings. Practitioners must object to any evidence they believe should not be considered, as failure to do so waives the argument on appeal. The ruling also clarifies that district courts may consider a wide range of evidence when determining public interest, including preliminary hearing testimony and related criminal history, even if those cases were ultimately expunged or dismissed.