May, J.
Alan Lee Berryman appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to expunge the record of a case in which a jury found him not responsible by reason of insanity (“NRRI”). Berryman raises one issue on appeal, whether a judgment of NRRI is a “conviction” as the term is used in Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1.
We affirm.
On November 3, 2001, Berryman approached a man and his wife in a mall parking lot. State v. Berryman, 796 N.E.2d 741, 742 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), opinion aff’d in part, vacated in part, 801 N.E.2d 170 (Ind. 2004). Berryman grabbed the man and accused him of trying to “set up” Berryman. Berryman then shot and killed the man. On November 7, 2001, the State charged Berryman with murder. A jury found Berryman not responsible by reason of insanity, so the court entered a judgment of NRRI. Subsequently, the court involuntarily committed Berryman to a state hospital. In re Commitment of Berryman, 797 N.E.2d 820, 822 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
On an undisclosed date thereafter, Berryman was released from his commitment, and he filed a Petition to Expunge/Seal Records pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1 in late 2017. The State filed an objection, and the trial court held a hearing on June 14, 2018. On July 17, 2018, the trial court issued an order denying Berryman’s petition. …
Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1 allows an individual arrested for a crime, but not convicted, to seek expungement of the records related to the arrest and charge. The statute applies “to a person who has been arrested, charged with an offense, or alleged to be a delinquent child, if: (1) the arrest, criminal charge, or juvenile delinquency allegation: (A) did not result in a conviction or juvenile adjudication.” Ind. Code § 35-38-9-1(a) (emphasis added). If the petitioner satisfies the conditions listed in the statute and does not have any pending criminal charges, the court “shall grant the petition.” Ind. Code § 35-38-9-1(e). Berryman argues his NRRI judgment is not a “conviction” because it does not result in criminal punishment and, therefore, the plain language of Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1 requires the court to grant his petition.
While the question Berryman presents about Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1 is one of first-impression in Indiana, our standard for reviewing this class of questions is well settled. “Statutory interpretation is a question of law reserved for the court and is reviewed de novo. De novo review allows us to decide an issue without affording any deference to the trial court’s decision.” Shaffer v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1072, 1076 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) …
At issue is the meaning of the term “conviction” in Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1 and, as former Chief Justice Shepard explained, “[t]he word ‘conviction’ is not a term of art, and its multiple definitions create some confusion.” Carter v. State, 750 N.E.2d 778, 779 (Ind. 2001) … Unfortunately, the legislature did not define “conviction” in Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1 or elsewhere in Title 35 of the Indiana Code. …
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “conviction” as: “1. The act or process of judicially finding someone guilty of a crime; the state of having been proved guilty. 2. The judgment (as by a jury verdict) that a person is guilty of a crime.” Conviction, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014) (emphases in original). Webster’s Dictionary defines “conviction” as “the act of proving, finding, or adjudging a person guilty of an offense or crime.” … Thus, in common vernacular, “conviction” is used to mean either a finding of guilt of a crime or a court judgment that leads to criminal punishment.
Where, as here, there is more than one reasonable interpretation of a term in a statute, we must construe the statute to give effect to the General Assembly’s intent. See Nash, 881 N.E.2d at 1063. We presume the legislature intends for “the language used in the statute to be applied logically and not to bring about an absurd or unjust result.” Id. Therefore, “we must keep in mind the objective and purpose of the law as well as the effect and repercussions of such a construction.” Id.
Applying these principles of statutory construction, we must conclude the legislature intended “conviction” as used in Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1 to encompass a NRRI judgment because to hold otherwise would be absurd and unjust, which could not have been the legislature’s intent. As we have previously observed, the intent of Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1 is to allow an individual who satisfies certain criteria to escape the stigma associated with an overturned conviction or an arrest that does not result in a conviction. B.S. v. State, 95 N.E.3d 177, 180 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). …
….
… A NRRI verdict is not equivalent to a “not guilty” verdict. If the State fails to prove each element of the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then the jury must render a verdict of not guilty. Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1(a). A NRRI verdict signifies that the defendant committed the criminal act, but the defendant is not legally responsible because “as a result of mental disease or defect, [the defendant] was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-6. If Berryman’s expungement petition were granted, the record of his heinous crime would be sealed and unavailable to the public. The legislature could not have intended such a result.
People have a right to know if their neighbors have committed violent acts and to use this knowledge to ensure their own safety. See Wallace v. State, 905 N.E.2d 371, 383 (Ind. 2009) (noting “registration systems are a legitimate way to protect the public from sex offenders”), reh’g denied. Murder is a serious crime, and a murder conviction is one of the few convictions that can never be expunged. See Ind. Code § 35-38-9-5(b) & Ind. Code § 35-38-9-4 (stating those convicted of a homicide offense are not eligible to have convictions expunged). Berryman remained in state custody after the NRRI verdict because he remained a threat to public safety.
Additionally, if we were to accept Berryman’s interpretation of the statute, an individual found NRRI could petition for expungement much earlier than a person convicted of a crime. … In comparison, individuals convicted of crimes eligible for expungement must wait 5 years to have the conviction expunged if it was a misdemeanor, eight years if the conviction was a felony, and ten years if the conviction was a felony resulting in serious bodily injury or committed by an elected official or candidate for public office. See Ind. Code §§ 35-38-9-2 to 3538-9-5. Even if found NRRI, an individual can still pose a danger to society, and perhaps this is why individuals found NRRI are excluded from the definition of “proper person” for purposes of Indiana’s firearm statutes. Ind. Code. § 35-47-1-7.
… Consequently, we construe the term “conviction” to include a NRRI verdict for purposes of Indiana Code section 35-38-9-1. See Nash, 881 N.E.2d at 1062-64 …
In solidarity with our sister states, we hold that an individual adjudicated NRRI may not have that finding expunged pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-91. To hold otherwise would be contrary to public policy, absurd, and unjust, which our legislature could not have intended. Accordingly, the trial court is affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.