In this case, the Commonwealth
undeniably failed to meet its burden where elected not to oppose, in any way,
Appellant’s petition. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in finding
that, “when balancing [Appellant’s] right to be free from the harm attendant to
maintenance of the arrest record against the Commonwealth’s interest in
preserving such records, in this particular case, greater weight must be afforded
to the Commonwealth’s interest in preserving such records,”where the
Commonwealth simply did not advance an interest in preserving Appellant’s
records. Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Appellant’s petition.
The Superior Court has required
the trial court to "balance the individual's right to be free from the
harm attendant to maintenance of the arrest record against the
Commonwealth's interest in preserving such records." Commonwealth v.
Wexler, 494 Pa. 325, 431 A.2d 877, 879 (Pa. 1981).
The mere assertion by the
Commonwealth of a general interest in maintaining accurate records of those
accused of a crime does not outweigh an individual's specific, substantial
interest in clearing his or her record. Id. at 881-82. In
addition, Wexler explicitly placed the burden of proof on the
Commonwealth.
In general terms, we held that
when the Commonwealth admits that it is unable to bear its burden of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, then "the Commonwealth must bear
the burden of justifying why the arrest record should not be expunged."
Id. at 880. Commonwealth v. Moto, 23 A.3d 989,
993-94 (Pa. 2011) (emphasis added).
