The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Adams, holding that the trial court erred in denying Adams’s expungement petition because it relied entirely on unproven hearsay allegations in denying the petition. This case will hopefully sharply limit the Commonwealth’s ability to object to the expungement of a dismissed case based solely on untested hearsay allegations that the case was serious or involved domestic claims.

Adams's legal troubles began with a 2007 conviction for violating a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order and harassment against his estranged wife. Following this conviction, Adams faced additional allegations in 2008, where his wife accused him of contacting or threatening her multiple times in violation of the PFA order. This resulted in five arrests and charges. Those charges included additional PFA violations, as well as charges of harassment and terroristic threats. He was arrested on five separate dockets, but his wife did not appear in court for any of them, and the Commonwealth ultimately withdrew all charges over ten years ago.

Adams’s case thus involved two sets of charges. In 2007, he was charged with violating a PFA order and harassment. He pleaded no contest, meaning he did not admit responsibility but did not contest the evidence, and was sentenced to six months of probation. In 2008, his estranged wife alleged he violated the PFA order five more times, leading to additional charges. The specific accusations included threats of violence, but these charges were withdrawn by the prosecution due to the complainant's failure to appear for court as required.

The Expungement Petition

In 2021, Adams filed to expunge the records of his 2008 arrests. Despite the charges being withdrawn, the trial court denied his petition, citing the nature of the allegations and the hearsay evidence in the records. Adams appealed this decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the trial court’s decision denying the expungement petition under the balancing test articulated in Commonwealth v. Wexler. Wexler requires weighing the petitioner’s right to be free from the harm of an arrest record against the Commonwealth's interest in retaining such records.

The Wexler Factors

The Superior Court analyzed each of the factors and ultimately concluded that a balance of all of the factors favored the petitioner.

1. Strength of the Commonwealth's Case:

   • Contrary to the trial court, the Superior Court found that the Commonwealth's case against Adams was weak. The evidence relied solely on hearsay allegations without any formal presentation of a prima facie case. This was particularly true because Adams had not even had a preliminary hearing. In Philadelphia, summary and misdemeanor charges do not get scheduled for a preliminary hearing but instead are scheduled immediately for trial before a Municipal Court judge. Thus, there was not even sworn testimony for the trial court to rely upon. The Commonwealth instead introduced only the arrest reports (PARS reports). The allegations in the Preliminary Arrest Report Summaries (PARS) were not sworn statements and were not subject to cross-examination, rendering them insufficient even to sustain a conviction in a criminal trial. The Commonwealth also did not call any witnesses at the hearing on the expungement petition, meaning the Commonwealth relied entirely on untested hearsay.

2. Reasons for Retaining Records:

   • The Commonwealth argued that the nature of the repeated domestic violence allegations justified retaining the records. However, the court noted that without substantiated evidence or further criminal activity by Adams since 2008, the interest in preserving these records was not compelling. The records' hearsay nature further undermined the validity of this reason.

3. Petitioner's Age, Criminal Record, and Employment History:

   • At the time of the petition, Adams was 65 years old and had remained arrest-free since the 2008 allegations. The significant time elapsed since the charges, along with Adams's clean record for over a decade, weighed heavily in favor of expungement. The court recognized that Adams's age and lengthy period without criminal incidents demonstrated rehabilitation and a reduced risk of reoffending, making retaining the records less important.

4. Length of Time Between Arrest and Petition to Expunge:

   • Thirteen years had passed since the withdrawal of the charges and Adams’s petition for expungement. This considerable gap, far exceeding the statute of limitations for the charges, supported the petition. The court noted that unlike in other cases where a shorter period might be insufficient, the extended time frame here was a strong factor favoring expungement. The court implied that a petition filed within the statute of limitations should be scrutinized more carefully.

5. Adverse Consequences to the Petitioner:

   • Although Adams did not present evidence of economic harm, the court recognized potential reputational damage. Even sealed records can sometimes be accessed inappropriately, causing harm to an individual's reputation. The court also noted that having multiple arrest records, as opposed to a single incident, could lead to more significant adverse consequences for Adams in the eyes of potential employers or the public. In this case, Adams records had been sealed, but the sealing of records is not as good as a full expungement.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Adams's expungement petition. The court emphasized the lack of credible evidence against Adams given that the evidence consisted entirely of hearsay, the significant time elapsed since the charges, and the undue harm maintaining the records could cause to his reputation. The decision underscores the importance of the Wexler balancing test in ensuring that expungement petitions are evaluated fairly, particularly when charges are withdrawn and the evidence against the petitioner is weak or nonexistent. It also cautions trial courts that they generally must require real evidence at a hearing on an expungement petition. Hearsay allegations may be sufficient when the Commonwealth can prove some explanation for why witnesses cannot appear such as genuine evidence of witness intimidation, but in most cases, they will no longer be enough.

This could dramatically change the practice in Philadelphia. In Philadelphia, prosecutors rarely call actual witnesses to testify at expungement hearings. Instead, they simply read the arrest report into the record even though the arrest report is hearsay. Following this case, the prosecution should be held to a higher standard and expected to produce competent evidence when they decide to oppose an expungement petition. This is an excellent decision by the court and recognizes that people should not have to live with criminal records from dismissed cases in which there was no evidence.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We can also help you evaluate whether you may be able to file an expungement petition. In many cases, non-profits will handle expungements for free. But if the Commonwealth is objecting to your petition or you wish to expedite the process, we may be able to help move things along more quickly and give you a better chance of success. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.