The Supreme Court of Ohio today upheld a denial to seal a woman’s criminal record after a Hamilton County trial judge found that she had not demonstrated she had been rehabilitated and that the government’s interest in keeping the records public outweighed the woman’s interest in concealing them.

A Supreme Court majority reversed a First District Court of Appeals’ decision, which ordered the sealing of the criminal records of a woman identified as “J.B.” The Court ruled the First District improperly substituted its judgment for that of the trial judge and developed its own standards for determining whether to seal criminal records.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Joseph T. Deters stated the First District imposed restrictions on the trial court that do not appear in Ohio’s sealing law, R.C. 2953.32. The First District found the trial judge wrongly weighed the government’s interest in keeping the records open against J.B.’s interest in sealing because neither the city nor county prosecutor objected to J.B.’s sealing application.

“The statute places no burden on the State to submit evidence concerning the application. And the lack of objection on the part of the prosecutor does not relieve the trial court of its duty to weigh the government interest against the applicant’s interest,” Justice Deters wrote.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice Deters’ opinion.

In an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Jennifer Brunner agreed with the majority that the First District made several errors. However, she noted the trial court’s statement in its ruling that J.B. provided “no evidence of rehabilitation” was not consistent with the record, which contained evidence of numerous steps she had undertaken toward rehabilitation. Justice Brunner stated that the case should be returned to the trial court to consider the other evidence it had ignored.

Woman Seeks to Seal Records of Convictions
In 2023, J.B. filed an application in Hamilton County Municipal Court to seal the records of seven misdemeanor convictions. Two of the cases were prosecuted by the Cincinnati city prosecutor and five by the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office. Neither office filed an objection to her application with the trial court.

At a hearing on the application, the trial judge asked J.B. why she was seeking to seal her record, and she responded that she was employed in social work and criminal background checks were hampering her ability to progress in the field. She stated, “It’s just not me anymore,” and added that she was now a licensed parental counselor serving in an internship with the state. She explained that she was not currently seeking a new job but had been rejected for a position with the county, and indicated her convictions played a role.

Following the hearing, the trial judge examined each of her convictions from 2012 to 2016 that she sought to seal, as well as later convictions.

One of the convictions was for attempted theft in 2014. The trial judge noted that the conviction resulted from J.B. being charged with taking an envelope containing $700 from a person at a gas station. She was ordered to pay restitution and received community control. She violated her community control conditions and was incarcerated for the violation.

The trial judge noted that J.B. did not apply to seal some traffic law convictions, which were likely ineligible under the sealing law, and two thefts outside of Hamilton County that occurred in 2018 and 2019.

The trial court considered J.B.’s number of convictions and determined she presented no evidence of rehabilitation beyond her statement, “It’s just not me anymore.” The judge explained J.B.’s interest in pursuing employment without disclosing convictions that included either dishonesty or interfering with law enforcement did not outweigh the government’s interest in protecting the public’s “need to know.”

“The applicant’s profession involves a position of trust both in terms of the clients she serves and the employer. They have a right to know of these proceedings and address them as they see fit,” the trial court stated.

J.B. appealed the decision to the First District, which reversed the trial court’s judgment. The county prosecutor appealed the First District’s decision to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Sealing Law Requirements
The Court’s opinion noted the First District’s reasoning for reversing the trial court. The appeals court found J.B. did offer evidence of rehabilitation. The First District also questioned how the trial court concluded the government’s interest outweighed J.B.’s when neither prosecutor objected to her sealing request. The First District also held that, based on one of its prior rulings, the trial judge wrongly considered the number of convictions when rejecting J.B.’s application.

Justice Deters explained the requirements of R.C. 2953.32.  As part of the process, the trial court considers whether the applicant has criminal charges pending and whether the prosecution or a victim objects to the sealing request.

The Court also explained that the law required J.B. to show her rehabilitation “to the satisfaction of the court” and that her interests in sealing the convictions outweigh any government interest in keeping the records open. The Court explained sealing is different than expungement, in which a criminal conviction is deleted from public records. Sealed records are maintained by the government but generally shielded from public view.

The Court noted the law makes clear the trial court has discretion to grant or deny the sealing application, and an appellate court can only reverse a trial court’s decision if it finds the trial court’s decision was “unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.” The Court noted that “an appellate court is not free to substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge.”

“Here, the First District did substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. And in doing so, it applied criteria not found in R.C. 2953.32,” the opinion stated.

In its 2023 State v. G.H. decision, the First District ruled a sealing application cannot be denied solely on the nature or number of offenses. The appeals court cited a 2022 amendment to the sealing law that removed the limit on the number of misdemeanor convictions that could be sealed.

The Supreme Court questioned whether the First District’s rule even applied, given that the trial judge did not base his decision “solely” on the number of convictions she had. However, nothing in the law prohibits a trial judge from considering the number of convictions when balancing the interests in sealing the records, the opinion noted.

“The trial court reasonably questioned whether a person whose convictions spanned seven years demonstrated rehabilitation,” the Court stated.

The Court also noted that, contrary to the First District’s decision, nothing in the law requires the trial court to receive an objection from the prosecutor to consider the government’s interest in keeping the records open. The Court noted that the trial judge raised concerns about the nature of J.B.’s convictions, and because J.B.’s profession involved a position of trust, an important governmental interest was implicated.

“It was not unreasonable to consider what type of convictions J.B. was seeking to seal in light of her professional interest in social work,” the opinion stated.

Trial Court Failed to Apply Law, Dissent Maintained
In her opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Justice Brunner stated that a trial court abuses its discretion when its decision includes an error in applying the law. She stated that the trial judge’s conclusion that J.B. did not offer any evidence of her rehabilitation, other than one comment that it was no longer just about her, contradicts the trial court record.

Justice Brunner noted that J.B. explained she was working as a licensed parenting counselor and completing an internship with the state as part of a program to obtain a doctorate in social work. J.B. explained that additional licensing in her field would require background checks, which was why she sought the sealing.

Justice Brunner also noted that J.B. told the judge she had obtained a certification of qualification for employment from the municipal court, which is a document designed to assist people with criminal records in obtaining employment.

“This evidence is indicative of rehabilitation,” Justice Brunner wrote.

She noted that the trial court still has discretion to deny the application, but she would remand the case and direct the trial court to fully assess all the evidence presented by J.B.

2024-0951. State v. J.B., Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1405.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.