How innocent is not guilty by reason of insanity? It was 1977 when Wells killed two people and tried to murder a third. A bench trial found him not guilty by reason of insanity in 1978 and he was committed to a mental health facility until 1984, when he was released to outpatient treatment status. Six years later, Wells was unconditionally released. Mr. Wells continued to live a crime-free life. He obtained a masters degree in education. Close to retirement age in 1995, he decided to petition the court for expungement of his arrest records from nearly twenty years ago.
The Illinois Circuit Court denied the petition as a matter of public policy. In its decision the court stated that because the defendant committed the acts that constituted the offense of murder, the right of the public to remain safe outweighed the defendant's interests. Mr. Wells appealed.
Holding: The trial court properly rejected the defendant's petition. While the Illinois expungement statute did not specifically include relief for those found not guilty by reason of insanity, the court ruled such defendants can petition for relief under the statute. The Appellate Court applied the plain meaning interpretation of the statute. The statute states that, "the trial court may upon verified petition of the defendant order the record of the arrest expunged from the official records." The Appellate Court cited the legislative use of the word "may" as discretionary in nature.
The Appellate Court followed the standard set by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. When reviewing petitions for expungement by petitioners found NGRI the Pennsylvania Court examines five factors. The first factor is the strength of the State's case; the second factor is the State's reason for wanting to retain the records; the third factor is the petitioner's age, criminal record, and employment history; the fourth factor is the length of time that has elapsed between the arrest and the petition to expunge; and the final factor considered by the court is the adverse effect on the petitioner if the expungement is denied. Furthermore, the court noted that each case should be considered on an individual basis.
| Christopher Slobogin, J.D. Professor of Law University of Florida |
Professor Slobogin comments: At first glance, one has to think Mr. Wells had incredible chutzpa asking for expunction of records recounting his arrest for two murders and one attempted murder, all of which he undeniably committed. Sure, he was found "not guilty" by reason of insanity (NCRI), and sure, Illinois law, like the law in most states, allows first-time offenders (like Mr. Wells) to seek expunction of arrest records if they've been "acquitted or released without being convicted." But as the United States Supreme Court pointed out in Jones v United States, 463 U.S. 354 (1983), an NGRI verdict establishes that "the defendant committed an act that constitutes a criminal offense." Mr. Wells committed not just one, but three acts that constituted criminal offenses, all of them extremely serious, under these circumstances, expunction (which would permit Mr. Wells to deny the crimes ever occurred, at least when applying for a job in the private sector) appears to be beyond the pale.
Even at second glance, the court's decision to deny Mr. Wells' expunction seems right. Wells more like the person who shouldn't have an arrest record at all because government authorities picked up the wrong person, or more like the person whose charges are dismissed merely because the evidence against him was illegally seized? One might say that the arrest record of a person found NGRI should always be expunged (like the records of our hypothetical innocent person) because a jury has unanimously found that the person cannot be held accountable for the crime. But like the person who benefits from the exclusionary rule, the person found NGRI has committed an antisocial act, a fact which should not be hidden from the public on the technical ground that no crime was involved. On this view, Mr. Wells' NGRI verdict may have made him technically eligible for expunction, but not a good candidate for it.
WHAT TO CONSIDER FOR EXPUNGEMENT:
- Strength of the State's case
- State's reason for wanting to retain the records
- Petitioner's age, criminal record and, employment history
- Length of time elapsed between the arrest and the petition to expunge
- Adverse effect on the petitioner if the expungement is denied
But the court probably should have sided with Mr. Wells, given the specifics of his situation. In Illinois, as in most states, the court is supposed to grant expunction for an eligible applicant if the individual's interest in being free from the criminal record outweighs the State's interest in retaining it. Mr. Wells did some horrible things. But by the time the appellate court considered his petition, twenty years had gone by, he had been unconditionally released from the hospital as non-dangerous, and he was 63 years old. He was unlikely to be a threat to anybody and should have had his record cleared, if not to help his job prospects (perhaps slim at that age), for the psychic satisfaction of knowing the state had recognized his rehabilitation.
Although it may seem strange to do so, think of the case in terms of the Americans with Disabilities Act. That Act does not purport to apply to criminal proceedings. But it does express a strong public policy against employment and similar decisions that are based solely on a past record of mental health problems or vague concerns about dangerousness. A sensitive appraisal of Mr. Wells' case should have left him on a level playing field with other 63 year olds, not saddled with a 20-year old record for the rest of his life.
