Utah Expungement Attorney
Salt Lake
Is a Utah expungement order considered a "complete"
expungement?
The
Utah Expungement Act as it exists as of 2015 should be viewed as
providing for a complete expungement. The Utah Expungement Act has been
amended and modified by the state legislature in various ways over the
years. Some of these changes have been merely technical or procedural.
Other changes have expanded or contracted the number or classes of
convictions that may be
expunged. But the legislature has also made
substantive changes that have significantly altered the effect of a
Utah expungement order.
As a result of these changes, there
is not a large body of appellate case law interpreting the most current
incarnation of the expungement act. However, a review of
earlier
cases does provide important insight into the purpose of the Utah
Expungement Act and the effect of an expungement order. The cases of
Thompson v. Department of
Treasury, 557 F. Supp. 158 (Utah D. 1982) and
State v. Jones,
581 P.2d 1414 (Utah 1978) both support the position that Utah’s
expungement statute should be viewed as providing a complete
expungement which erases a prior conviction.
If
you have questions regarding expungements in Utah or are considering a
petition for expungement, you should consult with an experienced
criminal attorney.
Contact us today to arrange for an initial consultation.
Thompson v. Department of
Treasury
The case of
Thompson
v. Department of Treasury addressed
the appellant’s assertion that an expungement order under Utah law at
the time “completely erased” the petitioner’s prior conviction.
Id.
557 F. Supp. at 165. The federal court opined that Utah’s expungement
statute (as it existed at the time) was “not a complete and unqualified
expungement that erases the prior conviction. . . .”
Id.
at 167. The federal court based its opinion in large part on a prior
Utah Supreme Court case opinion that had analyzed a previous version of
the state expungement statute.
See,
Id. at 167
(citing
State v. Jones).
The
federal court noted several changes in the Utah expungement statute
between the time of the 1978 Jones opinion and its own opinion in 1982.
Among these changes were the deletion in 1980 of statutory language
previously providing that upon entry of an expungement order, “the
petitioner may thereafter respond to any inquiries relating to
convictions of crimes as though the conviction never occurred” and also
the deletion of other statutory language previously providing that “the
case shall be deemed not to have occurred.”
Thompson, 557
F.Supp. at 166-67 (quoting Utah Code 77-35-16.5 (1978) (emphasis
added)).
The
federal court observed that the 1978 Utah expungement statute had been
replaced in 1980 with a statute that instead provided only that
following an expungement, “[i]n the event an employer asks concerning
arrests which have been expunged or convictions the records of which
have been sealed, the person who received expungement of arrest or
judicial pardon may answer as though the arrest or conviction had not
occurred.”
Id.
at 167
(quoting Utah Code §77-18-2(3) (1981) (emphasis added). Noting the much
more limited scope of the changed expungement statute (the former
applying to “any inquiries” as compared with the 1980 statute which
applied only inquiries made by an employer), the federal court
concluded that the 1980 Utah expungement statute was “not a complete
and unqualified expungement that erases the prior conviction. . . .”
Id. at 167.
While
the federal court held that the 1980 expungement was not a complete
expungement, it did opine that Utah Supreme Court decision in
Jones
did “support[] the conclusion that the [prior 1978] statute provided a
full and complete expungement, legally erasing the prior conviction.”
Thompson,
581 P.2d 141 at 167. The federal court noted that Jones appears to have
relied on the language from Utah Code 77-18-2(1)(c) (1978) which
states, in relevant part, that upon entry of an expungement order, the
person “may thereafter respond to any inquiries relating to convictions
of crimes as though that conviction never occurred.”
Thompson, 581 P.2d
141 at 166-67.
The reliance by the federal court on the
Jones
opinion is particularly relevant to the analysis of the current Utah
Expungement Act. While the current Utah Expungement Act is not
identical to the statutes in effect in 1978, the current statute again
includes language stating that a person whose criminal records have
been expunged may respond “to any inquiry as though the arrest or
conviction did not occur.” Utah Code §77-40-108(2) (emphasis added).
Therefore, both
Thompson
and
Jones
appear to support the position that the “any inquiry” language
indicates a legislative intent to create a full and complete
expungement which legally erases the prior arrest and conviction.
State
v. Jones
The Utah Supreme Court in
State
v. Jones,
581 P.2d 1414 (Utah 1978) analyzed the “any inquiries” language in
Utah’s expungement statutes as they then existed. As noted above in the
analysis of the
Thompson
opinion, the specific language in effect at the time provided that upon
entry of an expungement order, the individual “may thereafter respond
to any inquiries relating to convictions of crimes as though that
conviction never occurred.”
Jones, 581 P.2d at
142 (citing Utah Code 77-35-17.5(1)(c) (1978)).
The
Jones opinion is short, and specifically addresses the question of
whether a witness could be cross-examined regarding his prior
conviction of a crime, which conviction had been expunged.
Id.
at 141. The court held that because the expungement statute in effect
at the time applied to “any inquiries” relating to an expunged
conviction, the trial court was therefore correct in refusing to allow
the defendant to impeach the witness in regard to his expunged
conviction.
Id.
at 142.
After reaching its conclusion, the
Jones
court proceeded to make certain statements in dicta regarding the
purpose of Utah’s expungement statute. Noting that the statute allowed
a person to respond to “any inquiries” as though the conviction had
never occurred, the court stated that “[t]he purpose of that statute is
obvious. . . .”
Id.
Apparently relying on the plain language of the statute to demonstrate
the legislature’s intent, the court stated that “even after a person
has been convicted of a crime, in appropriate circumstances he may
comply with prescribed procedures . . . and . . . thereafter he may
respond to any inquiry concerning his record as though that conviction
had never occurred.”
Id.
Finding an Attorney for Expungements in Utah

The
expungement process can be complex. But obtaining a complete
expungement of your criminal records can provide significant benefits.
Having the assistance of an experienced
criminal attorney can help give you the best chance of obtaining an expungement order.
Contact
us today to arrange for an initial confidential consultation. We can
often tell you right over the phone whether you are
eligibile for an
expungement. And if you are not immediately eligible for an
expungement, we can explain possible ways to restore expungement
eligibility or alternative methods for clearing your record.
RELATED UTAH EXPUNGEMENT QUESTIONS
Who has the burden of proof on a Utah expungement petition?Are there exceptions that allow release of expunged
criminal records in Utah?Is there a separate process for obtaining expungement of juvenile records?