WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1263

AN ACT to amend and reenact section 12-60.1-04 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to hearings on petitions to seal a criminal record.

69th Legislative Assembly (2025-26) Introduced by Nels Christianson and 4 co-sponsors

ND HB 1263 tightens criminal-record sealing: requires clear and convincing evidence and explicit factors, plus a 1-year re-filing bar.

Filed with Secretary Of State 04/16
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1263

Summary — HB 1263 (North Dakota)

AN ACT to amend and reenact section 12‑60.1‑04 of the North Dakota Century Code — hearings on petitions to seal a criminal record

Purpose / Intent

The bill revises statutory procedures and standards for court hearings on petitions to seal criminal records (NDCC § 12‑60.1‑04). Its aim is to clarify the evidentiary standard and factors the court must weigh, set notice and timing requirements, and limit post‑denial re‑filing in some cases.

Key provisions

  • Standard to grant petition: the court may seal a criminal record only if it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that:

    • the petitioner has shown good cause;
    • the benefit to the petitioner outweighs the presumption of openness of the record;
    • the petitioner has completed all terms of imprisonment and probation for the offense;
    • the petitioner has paid all court‑ordered restitution for the offense;
    • the petitioner has demonstrated reformation; and
    • the petition otherwise complies with chapter requirements.

  • Factors the court must consider include:

    • nature and severity of the underlying crime;
    • risk the petitioner poses to society;
    • time elapsed since the offense;
    • petitioner’s rehabilitation;
    • aggravating/mitigating factors (including those in § 12.1‑32‑04);
    • petitioner’s criminal record, employment history, and community involvement;
    • recommendations from law enforcement, prosecutors, corrections officials, others familiar with the petitioner and offense; and
    • recommendations of victims of the offense.

  • Timing and notice:

    • A hearing may not be held earlier than 45 days after filing the petition.
    • To the extent practicable, upon receipt of a petition the prosecutor must notify and seek input from law enforcement, witnesses, victims, and correctional authorities familiar with the petitioner and offense.
    • Prosecutors may still stipulate to sealing a record without a hearing or on an expedited basis.

  • Appeals and refiling:

    • No appeal is allowed from a denial issued by a district judge or magistrate.
    • A denial in municipal court may be appealed to district court for de novo review without a filing fee; a district court denial may not be appealed.
    • If good cause is shown, a district court denying a petition may bar the petitioner from filing a subsequent petition for up to one year following the denial (language reduces a prior three‑year bar to one year).

  • When granted: the court’s order must state that the petitioner is sufficiently rehabilitated but remains subject to § 12.1‑33‑02.1; sealed information must be released where an entity has a statutory obligation to conduct criminal background checks.

Who is affected

  • Petitioners seeking sealing of criminal records (defendants/former offenders).
  • Prosecutors, law enforcement, corrections officials, and victims (who are to be notified and may provide recommendations).
  • Courts handling petitions (municipal, district, magistrate).
  • Employers and entities with statutory criminal‑history background check obligations (limited disclosure exception).

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Introduced in the House and advanced through Judiciary committees; recorded roll‑call votes show wide support (House 93–0; Senate 45–1).
  • Legislative actions indicate the measure was filed with the Secretary of State on April 16 (documented as filed 04/16).
  • The statute amended is NDCC § 12‑60.1‑04 (hearing on petition).

Practical effect / considerations

  • Raises the evidentiary threshold (clear and convincing) and lists explicit factors courts must weigh, potentially standardizing and (in some cases) narrowing sealing outcomes.
  • Strengthens victim and law‑enforcement input in the process by requiring prosecutors to solicit and consider their views.
  • Shortens the potential moratorium on refiling from three years to one year (when a district court finds good cause to prohibit refiling), allowing earlier reconsideration in some cases.
  • Maintains prosecutors’ ability to consent to sealing without a full hearing.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.