Case Title: State v. Fisher

Citation: 

Docket Number: 158, 2005

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
STATE OF DELAWARE, 
 
Respondent Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
NATHANIEL AARON FISHER, 
 
Petitioner Below- 
Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 158, 2005 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below—Family Court 
§  of the State of Delaware, 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  File No. JK97-1478 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
 
Submitted: February 17, 2006 
 
 
 
 
  Decided: May 17, 2006 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices. 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
This 17th day of May 2006, upon consideration of the appellant’s opening 
brief and the record below,1 it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The State of Delaware filed this appeal from the Family Court’s order 
expunging appellee Nathaniel Aaron Fisher’s juvenile record.  The State contends 
that the Family Court abused its discretion in expunging Fisher’s record because it 
failed to properly weigh the State’s interest against Fisher’s interest.  We find no 
abuse of discretion and affirm the Family Court’s judgment. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that Fisher pled delinquent in May 1999 to one 
count of fourth degree rape.  Fisher was 17 at the time of the criminal act, and the 
                                                 
1 By order dated December 27, 2005, the Court found appellee to be delinquent in filing 
an answering brief and ordered that the appeal be considered on the basis of the opening brief 
and record alone. 
 
2
victim was 12.  The police report indicates that Fisher told the police that the 
sexual encounter was consensual and the victim had told him she was older.  The 
report further indicates that the officer interviewed the victim who also indicated 
that she had willingly engaged in sex with Fisher.  The victim did not otherwise 
provide a statement to the trial court, despite being given the opportunity to do so.  
The Family Court ordered Fisher to be placed at Level IV at the discretion of the 
Division of Youth Rehabilitative Services and to register as a Tier II sex offender. 
 
(3) 
In January 2005, Fisher filed a petition to have his juvenile record 
expunged.  Fisher indicated that three years had elapsed since his delinquency 
adjudication and he had no other adjudications entered against him.2  The State 
opposed Fisher’s petition “because of the seriousness of the crime.”  The Family 
Court held a hearing at which Fisher and the State both appeared.  At the 
conclusion of the hearing, the Family Court specifically noted that: (i) Fisher’s 
crime did not involve an allegation of force; (ii) the psychological evaluations did 
not provide a basis to conclude Fisher was a continued risk; (iii) Fisher was 17 at 
the time of the crime; and (iv) Fisher requested the expungement in order to be 
recertified as an emergency medical technician.  The Family Court granted the 
petition for expungement pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 1001(c). 3 
                                                 
2 10 Del. C. § 1001(a) (1999).  
3 10 Del. C. § 1001(c) (1999).  Section 1001(c) provides in part that, upon the filing of a 
petition, the “Court shall hear the matter and if no material objection is made and no reason 
appears to the contrary, an order may be granted” ordering the records to be expunged.  The only 
 
3
 
(4) 
In its opening brief on appeal, the State asserts that the Family Court 
abused its discretion in granting the petition because it failed to adequately weigh 
the State’s societal interest in opposing the expungement against Fisher’s personal 
interest in favor of the expungement.  It is clear from the record, however, that the 
Family Court carefully considered the State’s objection to Fisher’s expungement 
petition.  The Family Court concluded that the State’s position is not correct in this 
particular case based upon the situation, considering the nature of the offense, the 
psychological and psychiatric evaluations, Mr. Fisher’s age, and also Mr. Fisher’s 
reason for having it expunged.”  The record shows that the findings of the Family 
Court were the result of a logical and orderly deductive process.  We find no abuse 
of discretion.   
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Family 
Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Henry duPont Ridgely  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Justice 
                                                                                                                                                             
exceptions are records involving crimes of second degree murder, first degree arson, and first 
degree burglary, which may not be expunged.