Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-1285 State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. M. D. T., Respondent. Filed April 9, 2012 Affirmed Klaphake, Judge Nobles County District Court File No. 53-CR-06-292 Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and Kimberly S. Pehrson, Assistant Nobles County Attorney, Worthington, Minnesota (for appellant) Daniel A. Birkholz, Birkholz Law LLC, St. James, Minnesota (for respondent) Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Cleary, Judge. SYLLABUS 1. When the factors enunciated in State v. H.A., 716 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Minn.

App. 2006), substantially support expungement, a district court does not abuse its discretion by ordering expungement of criminal records that are generated and maintained by the judicial branch. 2. When a district court carefully considers the need for open executive

branch records and balances those needs with the core function of the judiciary to issue

meaningful decisions and further fashions a remedy of sealing executive branch records subject to unsealing, it does not abuse its discretion by ordering expungement of criminal records that are generated by the judicial branch and maintained by the executive branch. OPINION KLAPHAKE, Judge Five years after entering an Alford plea to a felony charge of aggravated forgery for altering the dosage of a prescription cold medicine, respondent petitioned the district court for expungement of her criminal records. The district court granted the petition as to both respondent's criminal records generated and maintained by the judicial branch and those generated by the judicial branch and maintained by the executive branch. Appellant challenges that decision. FACTS On February 7, 2006, respondent M.D.T. was arrested after she submitted to a Worthington Shopko pharmacy an altered prescription for the cold medicine Robitussin, which contains codeine, a controlled substance. After her arrest, M.D.T. gave a

statement to police in which she admitted to altering the prescription dosage from 200 milliliters to 400 milliliters. She stated that she made the alteration because she did not have enough money for another prescription and could not afford to return to the doctor if the prescription did not work. Respondent's criminal record included no other offenses. The state charged respondent with two counts of felony-level aggravated forgery, Minn. Stat.

Download A11-1285, State of Minnesota, Appellant, vs. M. D. T., Respondent..pdf

Minnesota Law