Jones and the Clear-and-Convincing Public-Interest Test: No Automatic Expungement After Acquittal in South Dakota

Introduction

In Record Expungement of Jones, 2025 S.D. 54, the Supreme Court of South Dakota resolved a question of first impression: what standard governs expungement applications following an acquittal under SDCL 23A-3-27(3), and what evidentiary showing must a petitioner make under SDCL 23A-3-30? The Court reversed a circuit court order expunging the arrest and court records of Jarrett Owen Jones, who had been tried and acquitted of first-degree murder after asserting self-defense. The State argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by granting expungement without requiring the clear-and-convincing showing that the statute demands, particularly as to the “best interest of the public” and the “ends of justice.” The Supreme Court agreed.

Jones establishes several important precedents:

• Appellate jurisdiction exists for State appeals from expungement orders as a “final order affecting a substantial right, made in a special proceeding” under SDCL 15-26A-3(4).
• Expungement decisions under SDCL 23A-3-30 are discretionary and reviewed for abuse of discretion; statutory interpretation and the application of legal standards are reviewed de novo; factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
• Acquittal alone does not warrant expungement. Petitioners must prove by clear and convincing evidence that expungement serves all three statutory interests: the ends of justice, the best interest of the public, and the petitioner’s own best interest.
• Courts must conduct an individualized analysis and may consider non-exhaustive, factor-based guidance (including adverse consequences to the petitioner, public-access interests, and post-disposition conduct) when assessing the “ends of justice” and “public interest.”

Case Background

Jones was arrested on January 3, 2020, and indicted for first-degree murder after fatally shooting Jon Schumacher. A video in the criminal record shows two shots, including a second shot fired as Schumacher lay on the ground, severely injured. Jones sought statutory immunity under SDCL 22-18-4.8 (self-defense immunity), which the circuit court denied after finding the State had presented sufficient evidence that the shooting was not justified. The case proceeded to trial, and on March 8, 2022, a jury acquitted Jones of all charged and lesser-included offenses. The court entered a judgment of acquittal on March 10, 2022.

Less than two years later, Jones moved to expunge his arrest and trial records under SDCL 23A-3-27(3). At the hearing, Jones and his daughter testified primarily about stigma and his acquittal. Jones conceded that expungement would not erase the extensive press coverage and social media posts; he also acknowledged post-acquittal legal infractions, including a boating under the influence arrest. The State emphasized the public’s interest in open criminal records and argued that Jones presented no clear and convincing evidence that expungement served the public interest or the ends of justice. The circuit court nonetheless granted expungement, while remarking that the record was “weak on the clear and convincing evidence” and leaning on the fact of acquittal and the absence of controlling case law. The State appealed.

Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the expungement order. It held:

• Jurisdiction: The Court has jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal from an expungement order under SDCL 15-26A-3(4) as a final order in a special proceeding.
• Standard of review: Because SDCL 23A-3-30 uses “may,” expungement decisions are discretionary and reviewed for abuse of discretion. Errors of law, including failure to apply the statutory standard or burden, are abuses of discretion.
• Substantive holding: SDCL 23A-3-30 requires a petitioner to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that expungement serves the (1) ends of justice, (2) best interest of the public, and (3) best interest of the petitioner. Mere acquittal does not satisfy these requirements; expungements are not routine and require individualized analysis.
• Application: Jones presented no clear and convincing evidence that expungement served the public interest or the ends of justice. The circuit court’s oral acknowledgments—that the record was “weak” on the required showing and that it was “not sure” clear and convincing evidence should “carry the day”—demonstrated failure to apply SDCL 23A-3-30. Written conclusions parroting the statute were unsupported by the findings and the record. Reversal and vacatur were therefore required.
• Guidance: The Court provided factor-based guidance drawn from South Dakota authority and persuasive decisions in other jurisdictions to aid future expungement determinations, including considerations bearing on the public’s interest in open courts, adverse consequences to petitioners, the strength of the underlying case, and post-disposition conduct.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• SDCL 23A-3-27(3), -30, -31, -32: Statutory scheme for expungement. Expungement is the sealing (not destruction) of records related to “detection, apprehension, arrest, detention, trial or disposition” (SDCL 23A-3-26(1)). A court “may” enter expungement upon clear and convincing evidence that it serves the ends of justice, the public interest, and the petitioner’s interest (SDCL 23A-3-30). The effect is to restore the person to the pre-arrest status in the contemplation of law (SDCL 23A-3-31, -32).
• Jurisdiction – SDCL 15-26A-3(4): Expungement orders are “final order[s] affecting a substantial right, made in a special proceeding,” thus appealable by the State. This resolves an important procedural threshold for future cases.
• Standard of Review:
  • Long v. State, 2017 S.D. 78: “May” is permissive, supporting abuse-of-discretion review for expungement decisions.
  • State v. Abraham-Medved, 2024 S.D. 14; Pieper v. Pieper, 2013 S.D. 98; Cook v. Cook, 2022 S.D. 74: Misapplication of law is an abuse of discretion; wrong burden of proof warrants reversal.
  • Expungement of Oliver, 2012 S.D. 9; In re Guardianship of S.M.N., 2010 S.D. 31; In re Guardianship of Flyte, 2025 S.D. 21: De novo review of statutory interpretation and application; clear-error review for factual findings.
• “Ends of Justice” and Individualized Assessment:
  • State v. Elder, 77 S.D. 540 (1959) and Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216 (1932): In the analogous suspended imposition of sentence statute (SDCL 23A-27-13), courts must individualize decisions with “an exceptional degree of flexibility.” The Court uses this as an interpretive analogue for expungements.
  • City of Sioux Falls v. Marshall, 48 S.D. 378 (1925): “Ends of justice” are the result that ought to be reached by regular administration of law as applied to the facts, considering the parties’ rights, privileges, and immunities—a relative, fact-intensive inquiry.
• Textual Integrity and Non-automatic Expungement:
  • Pete Lien & Sons, Inc. v. Zellmer, 2015 S.D. 30: Avoid interpretations that render statutory language meaningless. Applying here, the Court rejects any categorical rule that acquittal equals expungement, which would nullify the clear-and-convincing standard.
• Open Courts and Public Access:
  • Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980); Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286 (2017); State v. Uhre, 2019 S.D. 8: Openness in criminal trials protects the public’s and press’s rights, bolsters confidence in the justice system.
  • SDCL 15-15A-1 and 15-15A-5: South Dakota’s court-records policy favors access to promote accountability and public safety, while minimizing risk of injury to individuals.
• Other Jurisdictions’ Guidance (persuasive, not binding):
  • People v. Carroccia, 817 N.E.2d 572 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004): Factors include strength of the State’s case; State’s reasons to retain records; petitioner’s age, record, and employment history; time since arrest; specific adverse consequences of denial; and post-disposition behavior—even after acquittal.
  • In re LoBasso, 33 A.3d 540 (N.J. App. Div. 2012) and In re Kollman, 46 A.3d 1247 (N.J. 2012): “Public interest” analysis may consider nature of the offense, conduct and character since disposition (rehabilitation, compliance with obligations, community ties), and cognizable evidence that records impede reentry—because successful reentry serves public safety.
• Effect of Expungement v. Conduct:
  • In re Jarman, 2015 S.D. 8: Expungement seals records; it does not erase the underlying conduct. That conduct may remain relevant in other legal contexts.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three steps: first, establishing the governing standards and scope of review; second, construing SDCL 23A-3-30’s clear-and-convincing, three-pronged requirement; and third, applying those standards to an evidentiary record focused largely on stigma and acquittal.

1. Standard of review and discretion. Because SDCL 23A-3-30 uses “may,” expungement is discretionary. A court abuses its discretion by failing to apply the correct legal standard or burden or by reaching a result clearly against reason and evidence. Legal interpretations are reviewed de novo; findings of fact for clear error.
2. Meaning of the statute. The Court emphasizes that SDCL 23A-3-30 is conjunctive and demanding. A petitioner must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, three separate propositions: (a) expungement serves the ends of justice; (b) expungement serves the best interest of the public; and (c) expungement serves the petitioner’s best interest. The statute’s burden and phrasing preclude a categorical entitlement to expungement upon acquittal and signal that expungement is not routine. Each case must be individualized.
3. Public interest and ends of justice—what counts? The Court rejects arguments that public access concerns should be ignored. It integrates South Dakota’s strong policy favoring open courts and accessible records into the “public interest” analysis (SDCL 15-15A-1, -5; Richmond Newspapers, Uhre, Weaver). It also draws on Carroccia and LoBasso to illustrate relevant factors: adverse consequences to the petitioner; the State’s legitimate interests in record retention; the strength of the underlying case; time elapsed; post-disposition conduct; rehabilitation; and evidence that records impede law-abiding reentry (employment, licensing, credit, housing).
4. Application to Jones. Jones’s proof centered on stigma and the fact of acquittal. He offered no concrete evidence of specific adverse consequences (e.g., employment denials, license denials, credit refusals, travel blocks), and conceded that expungement would not remove extensive public reporting. He also acknowledged post-acquittal law violations. The circuit court expressly stated it did not know whether “there is necessarily clear and convincing evidence,” yet granted expungement based on acquittal and a perceived gap in case law. Those statements, and the mismatch between the court’s oral misgivings and its boilerplate written conclusions, demonstrated failure to apply the statutory burden. Because the record did not establish the required public-interest or ends-of-justice showings, reversal and vacatur were required.

Impact

Jones is a foundational expungement decision in South Dakota. Its likely effects include:

• No “automatic expungement” after acquittal. Petitioners must build a record demonstrating specific, cognizable harms and benefits that meet a clear-and-convincing standard. Stigma and the acquittal itself are insufficient.
• Elevated evidentiary expectations. Petitioners should present documentary and testimonial proof of adverse consequences (employment, licensing, credit, housing, travel, insurance), rehabilitative conduct (education, job training, compliance with obligations), and reasons why sealing records aligns with public safety and accountability.
• Public-access considerations will matter. Courts will weigh the public’s interest in transparency, accountability, and safety. High-profile or serious charges, especially where the record illuminates public understanding of the justice system, may be less likely to be sealed absent extraordinary showings.
• Structured, factor-based analysis. While the Court did not adopt a rigid test, it signaled that courts may look to the Carroccia and LoBasso factors, plus South Dakota’s open-records policy, to guide the “ends of justice” and “public interest” analysis. This practical framework will inform briefing and evidentiary hearings across the state.
• Appellate oversight. By recognizing State appellate jurisdiction over expungement orders and setting the standard of review, Jones will likely lead to more appeals where courts misapply the burden or fail to make supported findings.
• Second Amendment/self-defense acquittals get no special carveout. The Court rejected any category-based entitlement to expungement for self-defense cases. The same clear-and-convincing, individualized showing applies.
• Remedial scope clarified. Because expungement seals records rather than erasing conduct (and does not eliminate media coverage), petitioners must account for the practical limits of the remedy in demonstrating actual benefits to themselves and the public.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Expungement (SDCL 23A-3-26(1)). Sealing—not destroying—criminal justice records in courts, law enforcement, and related agencies. After expungement, the general public cannot access those records, but certain entities (e.g., law enforcement, prosecutors) may retain limited access as provided by statute. Media coverage and facts in the public domain remain.
• “Clear and convincing evidence.” A high civil burden. The proof must be so clear, direct, and weighty that it persuades the court to a firm conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of each required element. It is more demanding than “preponderance of the evidence,” but less than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• “Ends of justice.” A contextual, equitable concept: the result that ought to be reached by proper application of law to the specific facts. It invites a holistic, case-specific look at competing interests and consequences.
• “Best interest of the public.” A broad policy concern that includes transparency in the judicial process, accountability, public safety, and confidence in outcomes. It may also include how sealing records affects community welfare and reentry, where supported by cognizable evidence.
• Abuse of discretion. A reviewing court will reverse where the lower court applied the wrong law or burden, or reached a decision clearly against reason and evidence in the record.

Practical Guidance for Litigants and Courts

For Petitioners

• Do not rely on acquittal or generalized stigma. Prepare evidence tailored to the statutory prongs.
• Document concrete adverse consequences tied to the records: job or license denials; credit or housing refusals; contract terminations; insurance consequences; travel impediments. Provide letters, notices, affidavits, or employer testimony.
• Show rehabilitation and law-abiding conduct since disposition: education, training, certifications, community service, compliance with legal obligations, avoidance of risky associations.
• Explain why sealing records advances public interests such as safety and accountability (e.g., improved employment reduces recidivism risk), and address why the public’s interest in access is sufficiently outweighed here.
• Anticipate that media and social media coverage persist. Be prepared to explain the practical benefits of sealing notwithstanding this limitation.

For the State

• Develop the public-access record: identify how the court file informs understanding of the case; emphasize transparency, accountability, and safety considerations under SDCL 15-15A-1.
• Address the strength of the underlying case, reasons to retain records, and any ongoing relevance (e.g., future evidentiary use permitted by law, patterns of conduct, or public-safety implications).
• Probe for lack of concrete harm or the availability of less-restrictive means; highlight post-disposition violations or contradictory evidence.

For Trial Courts

• Hold a hearing and require evidence unless waived as permitted by statute. Make explicit, non-conclusory findings aligned with each prong of SDCL 23A-3-30.
• Apply the clear-and-convincing standard expressly; avoid boilerplate that merely repeats statutory language without factual support.
• Use a factor-based analysis—without rigid tests—to individualize the case:
  • Specific adverse consequences if records remain public;
  • Time since arrest/disposition; age; criminal history; employment history;
  • Post-disposition conduct, rehabilitation, and community ties;
  • Strength of the State’s case and the State’s reasons to retain records;
  • Public-access interests and policy factors in SDCL 15-15A-1.

Unresolved or Open Questions

• Victim participation. The opinion notes, but does not decide, how victim interests factor in expungements post-acquittal and the operation of SDCL 23A-3-29 regarding hearings and waivers.
• Scope of evidentiary use of sealed matters. The opinion reiterates that expungement does not erase conduct, but future cases may refine when and how sealed records or underlying conduct can be referenced or used.
• Remedial posture on appeal. The Court vacated rather than remanded where the record was insufficient. Future cases may clarify when a remand for additional evidence is appropriate.

Conclusion

Jones is the South Dakota Supreme Court’s first comprehensive treatment of expungement under SDCL 23A-3-30. It clarifies that acquittal is a necessary gateway but never a guarantee: petitioners must carry a clear-and-convincing burden on three distinct fronts—the ends of justice, the public’s best interest, and the petitioner’s own best interest. The decision re-centers expungement analysis on individualized facts and anchors the public-interest prong in South Dakota’s strong commitments to open courts, accountability, and public safety. By providing a practical, factor-based framework (borrowed persuasively from other jurisdictions) and enforcing rigorous evidentiary expectations, Jones will shape how courts, petitioners, and prosecutors litigate expungement petitions going forward. The message is plain: expungement in South Dakota is discretionary, exceptional, and evidence-driven—not automatic, even after acquittal.