When North Carolina lets a person clear their criminal record (expunge it) under § 15A-145 (under-18 misdemeanor first offender) or § 15A-146 (dismissed or acquitted charge), can the petitioner clear multiple offenses, or only one?
Plain-English summary
North Carolina has two longstanding expungement statutes that let certain criminal records be cleared:
- § 15A-145 covers people who were under 18 at the time of a misdemeanor, had no prior felony or misdemeanor convictions, and have since been convicted of the misdemeanor in question. They can petition the court for expunction of that misdemeanor.
- § 15A-146 covers people whose charges (misdemeanor or felony) were dismissed or who were found not guilty at trial. They can petition for expunction of the charge if they have no prior felony convictions and have not previously received an expungement.
Both statutes were drafted with singular language throughout: "a crime," "a misdemeanor," "a felony," "the charge." The AG used those word choices to answer a recurring practical question: can a petitioner expunge multiple offenses at once?
The answer was no. Two textual signals supported that reading:
-
The singular articles ("a," "the") used before the offense terms. Under standard rules of statutory construction, the dictionary meaning of "a" before a noun denotes a single thing. The legislature, by choosing the singular, signaled a per-offense limitation. The AG cited State v. Brown for the principle that words should be understood by their common and ordinary meaning unless they have a technical meaning or one indicated by context, and pointed to the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of "a" as denoting a single person or thing.
-
The no-prior-expungement bar in § 15A-146. The statute requires the petitioner to have never received a previous expungement. If a single petition could clear multiple offenses, the no-prior-expungement bar would be easy to circumvent (just file one big petition rather than several). The bar makes sense only if each expungement is for a single offense.
The AG carved out one narrow exception: multiple offenses arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, or consolidated for trial and judgment. Those are treated as a unit by the criminal procedure system already, and expungement can follow the same unit-of-prosecution logic. So a defendant who was charged with two counts arising out of a single act, dismissed together, could expunge both at once. But a defendant with two unrelated misdemeanors, each dismissed independently, would have to pick one to expunge.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. North Carolina's expungement statutes have been amended substantially since 1995. The legislature has added new sections (e.g., for nonviolent felonies, drug-treatment-court completers, and human-trafficking victims), changed eligibility windows, raised or lowered prior-conviction bars, and explicitly addressed multiple-offense petitions in some contexts. Current expungement work should be done under current law; the 1995 single-offense rule is a starting point but is not a safe summary of what the law allows today.
Background and statutory framework
The expungement remedy in North Carolina has always served a specific rehabilitative purpose: letting someone who has cleared a one-time mistake or a wrongful charge re-enter normal life without the criminal record following them through job searches, housing applications, and credit checks. The narrowness of the relief (one offense, mostly first offenders, mostly minor or dismissed charges) reflects a legislative judgment that this safety valve should be used sparingly.
The 1995 textual debate was a classic statutory-construction problem. The legislature could have written the statute either way. The AG read the singular articles as load-bearing: they were the legislature's chosen drafting device for the per-offense limitation. The contrary reading (which would treat "a misdemeanor" as a stand-in for "misdemeanor or misdemeanors") was textually plausible but inconsistent with the no-prior-expungement bar.
State v. Brown is the standard North Carolina case for plain-meaning statutory construction. The proposition the AG relied on, that undefined words should take their common and ordinary meaning, is so well-established that it is usually invoked only when both sides agree on the canon but disagree on the application. Here the application was straightforward: "a" means singular.
The same-transaction exception is consistent with general North Carolina criminal-procedure doctrine. Multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode are typically consolidated for trial. A judgment in a consolidated case is one judgment, even if it lists multiple counts. Expunging the judgment as a unit fits the natural structure of the case. The AG's exception keeps the rule workable for the common scenario without opening the door to multi-offense expungements across unrelated incidents.
The practical consequence in 1995 was that a defendant choosing to expunge had to make a strategic decision. Which offense to clear? Usually the most recent dismissed or acquitted charge, since that one would be most visible in background checks. But for a person with two old dismissed charges (one for a serious-sounding offense, one for a minor offense), the choice would depend on which background-check footprint mattered most.
Common questions
What if I have a felony dismissal and a misdemeanor dismissal from the same year, but on different days? Can I expunge both?
Under the 1995 AG reading, no. Two separate incidents, even close in time, are two separate offenses. The petitioner would have to pick one to expunge. (Again, this rule may have been changed by later statutory amendments; current law should be consulted.)
What about three charges arising from the same arrest, all dismissed together?
That would be a "same transaction" case, which falls within the AG's exception. All three could be expunged as a unit.
Does the singular rule apply if my charges were tried together in one consolidated trial?
Yes, the AG specifically mentioned consolidation for trial and judgment as a same-transaction-style exception. Charges consolidated by the prosecutor or by court order would be one unit for expungement purposes.
Can I file a second expungement years later if I'm eligible again?
Section 15A-146 expressly bars a person who has previously received an expungement from getting another one. Section 15A-145 is silent on second petitions but the no-prior-conviction bar effectively limits people to one bite at the apple. So under the 1995 framework, a North Carolinian got one expungement opportunity over a lifetime under each statute, not multiple.
Has anything in this changed since 1995?
Yes, substantially. The legislature has revised the expungement framework multiple times. New eligibility categories have been added, some prior-conviction bars have been loosened, and procedures for petitioning have been streamlined. Anyone considering an expungement today should consult current North Carolina statutes and a North Carolina attorney; this opinion is useful historical context but is not a current guide to filing.
Source
Citations
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-145
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-146
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-180
- State v. Brown, 320 N.C. 179 (1987)
Original opinion text
-
N.C.G.S. § 15A-145 controls the expunction of records for first offenders who are under the age of eighteen (18) at the time they commit a misdemeanor. The statute provides that if any person has not reached the age of eighteen (18) and has not previously been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, and subsequently pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a misdemeanor, that individual can file a petition in the court where he was convicted for an expunction of the misdemeanor from his criminal record. The plain wording of this statute makes it clear that the individual may not have been previously convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, and that only one such conviction can be expunged. This construction is supported by the fact that the statute further provides that the individual must submit affidavits that he/she has not previously been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor prior to the conviction for the misdemeanor in question. The precise language of this section clearly does not authorize multiple expunctions or one expunction of multiple offenses.
-
N.C.G.S. § 15A-146 uses wording similar to § 15A-145. The only difference is that the age requirement does not exist in § 15A-146 and the conditions under which a person may receive the expunction are that the charges must have been dismissed or there must have been a finding of not guilty at a trial. If the person is charged with a crime, either a misdemeanor or a felony, and that person is found not guilty or the charge is dismissed, then that person may petition to the court for an expunction. This statute also contains the wording to the effect that the person must not have been previously convicted of any felony and must not previously have received an expungement. This section refers to several items in the singular, with terms such as: "a crime", "a misdemeanor", "a felony" and "the charge". With such language, as well as the requirement that a person has never received a prior expungement, it is our opinion that an expungement should only be allowed for a singular offense and not for multiple offenses occurring over a period of time.
Both N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-145 and 146 are phrased throughout in singular terms. Unless words have a technical statutory meaning or one definitely indicated by their context, they should be understood according to their common and ordinary meaning, with the dictionary as a universally recognized source of such meaning. State v. Brown, 320 N.C. 179, 358 S.E.2d 1, cert. denied, 484 U.S. 970, 108 S. Ct. 467, 98 L.E.2d 406 (1987). The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1985) defines the term "a", when used before nouns, to denote a single person or thing. The legislative use of this term before the words "crime", "misdemeanor" and "felony" would therefore restrict their usage in terms of the singular and not plural. Thus, we conclude that the legislature intended only a singular offense to be expunged and not multiple offenses.
If the legislature had intended N.C.G.S. §§ 15A-145 and 146 to allow for the expunction of multiple offenses, it would have used plural articles in the wording of the statutes. Only where multiple offenses arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, or were consolidated for trial and judgment, would an expunction of more than one offense be appropriate.
Michael F. Easley
Attorney General
Robin P. Pendergraft
Special Deputy Attorney General
John J. Aldridge, III
Assistant Attorney General