People v. Bushu, 93CA0988
| Decision Date | 05 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93CA0988,93CA0988 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard BUSHU, Defendant-Appellant. . IV |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Stephen K. Erkenbrack, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Laurie Rottersman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Richard M. Crane, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Opinion by Judge PLANK.
Petitioner, Richard Bushu, appeals the denial of his petition to seal his criminal records pursuant to § 24-72-308, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B). We vacate the order and remand.
Petitioner was charged with twelve felony counts, including charges of first and second degree sexual assault, sexual assault on a child, aggravated incest, and crime of violence. All counts arose from incidents allegedly occurring in 1983 and 1984 involving petitioner's daughter. These charges were filed in October 1991; in November 1992, a jury found petitioner not guilty on all counts.
Two months later, petitioner filed a petition to seal his criminal records from the above case pursuant to § 24-72-308. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion to seal.
Section 24-72-308(1), C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B) allows any person in interest to petition the district court for the purpose of sealing that person's criminal records. A petition may be filed to seal records of a criminal offense for which the person was not charged, in any case which was completely dismissed, or in any case in which the person was acquitted. Section 24-72-308(1)(a), C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B).
Under this statute, the district court is to conduct a hearing to determine whether "the privacy of the petitioner or dangers of unwarranted adverse consequences to the petitioner outweigh the public interest in retaining the records...." Section 24-72-308(1)(c), C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B).
A district court must balance the competing interests in determining whether criminal records should be sealed. A court's decision in this regard will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. See People v. Whittle, 628 P.2d 169 (Colo.App.1981).
Here, the record indicates the trial court considered the fact that petitioner was acquitted. Additionally, the district court took judicial notice of petitioner's affidavit in support of sealing criminal records which revealed a 1984 deferred judgment for child abuse. Petitioner's affidavit, although stating that he was presently employed, also asserted problems with future employers having access to his criminal record.
In regard to a request to seal records of a prior arrest and conviction, this court in D.W.M. v. District Court, 751 P.2d 74 (Colo.App.1988) set out factors that must be considered in balancing the harm to the petitioner against the public interest: the severity of the offense, the time lapsed since the conviction the subsequent criminal history of the petitioner, and the need for the government agency to retain the records. "These factors must be weighed and the trial court's findings should reflect adequately such consideration." D.W.M. v. District Court, supra, 751 P.2d at 75.
In D.W.M., the petitioner requested the court to seal records of a prior arrest and conviction. Here, in contrast, petitioner requested the district court to seal his criminal records concerning an acquittal, and accordingly, he contends the district court erroneously relied on the D.W.M. holding. We conclude that the D.W.M. factors are applicable here.
The D.W.M. case was decided under The Criminal Justice Act of 1977, Colo.Sess.Laws 1977, ch. 340, § 24-72-308 at 1249, which permitted a court to seal criminal records, including conviction records, upon petition and hearing. However, the 1977 statute was repealed and reenacted in 1988, narrowing the categories of persons eligible for sealing of criminal records to persons who were not charged, persons whose charges were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Denver Firefighters Local No. 858, IAFF, AFL–CIO v. City & Cnty. of Denver
...and conclusions as to the factors it considered and its balancing of those factors. Cf. Shreck, 22 P.3d at 78–79, 83;People v. Bushu, 876 P.2d 106, 108 (Colo.App.1994).C. Application of the Balancing Test ¶ 40 The City is interested in maintaining its authority to perform what it views as i......
-
Squire Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. v. City and County of Denver
...a subject's privacy interest may outweigh the state's interest, though varied, are subject to common understanding. Cf. People v. Bushu, 876 P.2d 106 (Colo.App.1994). Likewise, while it is impossible to describe in advance the myriad situations that may constitute "good cause" for failure t......
-
Freedom v. El Paso County Sheriff's Dept.
...(2008). The district court reviews the custodian's determination for abuse of discretion. Harris, 123 P.3d at 1175; see People v. Bushu, 876 P.2d 106, 107 (Colo.App.1994). In turn, we review de novo whether the district court applied the correct legal standard to its review of the custodian......
-
Huffman v. City of Denver
...Justice Act of 1977 permitted courts to seal all criminal records, including convictions, upon petition and hearing. People v. Bushu , 876 P.2d 106, 108 (Colo. App. 1994) (citing Ch. 340, sec. 1, § 24-72-308, 1977 Colo. Sess. Laws 1249). But, in 1988, the General Assembly repealed and re-en......