NEW OHIO EXPUNGEMENT LAW PASSED!

Senate Bill 337 was recently signed into law by Ohio Governor Kasich. The newly enacted law which takes effect this fall alters what can be sealed and who is able to apply for his/her record to be sealed. The bill changes the words “first offender” to “eligible offenders.” “First offender” was defined as a person who “previously or subsequently has not been convicted of the same or a different offense in this state or any other jurisdiction.” In contrast, “eligible offender” is defined as a person who “has not more than one felony conviction, not more than two misdemeanor convictions if the convictions are not of the same offense, or not more than one felony conviction and one misdemeanor conviction in this state or any other jurisdiction.” In other words, the courts are now able to seal either one felony and one misdemeanor or two misdemeanors if they are not of the same offense. In order to have a conviction sealed, there must be a hearing after the application is filed. The prosecutor from the original case may object to having the conviction sealed. The court then must have its regular probation officer, a state probation officer, or the department of probation of the county where the applicant lives “make inquiries and written reports as the court requires concerning the applicant.” If the judge rules in favor of the applicant, the offender’s previous convictions will be sealed. This could potentially help non repeat offenders to regain their constitutional rights, more specifically their 2nd Amendment rights, which would otherwise be denied to them. It is important that someone considering this process with regards to their firearm rights contact a qualified gun lawyer before proceeding as there are many nuances to not only the state law but also federal law.

Stand Your Ground / Castle Doctrine

With the recent outcry over the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, resulting in an attack on Stand Your Ground laws, it is important for one to actually understand the law. Florida's Stand Your Ground law states, "A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony." In other words, if a person "reasonably believes" that he may die or be significantly harmed, he can use deadly force no matter where he is. In the Martin/Zimmerman case, Zimmerman explains that Martin violently attacked him (wounds suggest that his head was being banged against a curb) and that he only shot Martin because he feared for his life and to protect himself from "great bodily harm." If this is the case, then Zimmerman was potentially using deadly force correctly according to the Stand Your Ground law. The application of the law could possibly have saved his life. However, if Zimmerman's story is not true and he actually provoked Martin, then Zimmerman did not actually "reasonably believe" that deadly force was needed to protect himself. If this scenario is true, then the Stand Your Ground law is not applicable in this case because Zimmerman did not hold a reasonable belief that such force was necessary. Unlike Florida, Ohio does not have a Stand Your Ground law. However, Ohio has implemented the Castle Doctrine. Like the Stand Your Ground laws, there still must be a reasonable belief of imminent danger that requires deadly force to repel. The difference between the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws is that the Castle Doctrine only applies to one's home or vehicle. The Martin/Zimmerman case is still pending. In addition, some are calling for the repeal of Stand Your Ground laws countrywide. It will be interesting to see how the case influences the fate of Stand Your Ground laws. As Ohio Gun Lawyers our office is well versed in criminal matters as it relates to these laws. Call today for a consultation.