Rep. Joseph Almeida, D-Providence, listens to the debate on the House floor yesterday on the expungement bill he sponsored. The vote on the legislation was postponed.

>

The Providence Journal / Connie Grosch

PROVIDENCE — After a spirited debate in which lawmakers accused one another of trying to rewrite history by running a giant “eraser” through the state’s criminal record books, House leaders had second thoughts yesterday about putting a far-reaching “quash-and-destroy” bill to an immediate vote.

In the wake of complaints that the bill did not do what its sponsors said it did — and was sloppily written — House Majority Leader Gordon Fox, D-Providence, agreed to postpone the vote until tomorrow so that it can be rewritten to address some of the more technical concerns.

But despite objections from the attorney general, the state police, the governor and several lawmakers, House leaders gave no indication that they are willing to spare their members an election-year vote on a bill that would “quash and destroy” the records of all crimes that resulted in a deferred-sentence at the end of the deferral period, no matter how serious the offense or the history of the offender.

Supporters insisted that the bill, sponsored by Providence Democrat Joseph Almeida, is aimed at cleansing the records of young people who made a “stupid,” “nonviolent” mistake that threatens their future.

“Deferred sentences have always been subject to expungement. We’re just going back to the old system to help young kids, to help our constituents’ families when they have a problem … so that we don’t waste or ruin a college career which will otherwise be fruitful,” said one of the co-sponsors, lawyer-legislator Nicholas Mattiello, D-Cranston.

But critics of the legislation noted that it is not limited to youthful indiscretions, and it goes much further than the state’s existing expungement law in that it is also not limited to nonviolent crimes by first-time offenders, does not give judges any discretion in whether to remove a crime from the public record, and orders the automatic destruction of all records of cases in which someone has, as a condition for receiving a deferred sentence, pleaded guilty or no-contest to a crime.

Beyond that, critics argued that it could be used as a legal club to prevent the state’s newspapers — including The Providence Journal — from publishing facts that the public already knows about crimes or perhaps should know if they involve candidates for public office, judgeships or any other job.

“So now we are rewriting history and telling the newspaper they can’t refer to something that everybody knows about?” Rep. Laurence Ehrhardt, R-North Kingstown, asked rhetorically.

“Is it possible you could hold this,” queried House Minority Leader Robert Watson, “until such time as you can make [a] change so we’re not putting The Providence Journal, the Warwick Beacon, all the newspapers in our communities in the docket, standing trial because they reminded us of something we once upon a time knew and now we’re told we’re not supposed to know?”

“How does that work?” asked Watson, R-East Greenwich. “I don’t get that.”

But the Democrat-dominated House voted 49 to 13 against a bid by House Minority Whip Nicholas Gorham, R-Coventry, to return the bill to a committee for more work. It “just seems to me we are a little too quick on the draw here with the eraser,” he said.

Current law already allows the expungement of a single, nonviolent offense from the record of a first-time offender five years after he or she has completed a sentence for a misdemeanor, or 10 years after completing a sentence for a felony. Despite efforts by Almeida and others over the years to shorten the waiting periods, this law remains intact. It was used to remove 4,360 misdemeanors and 625 felonies from the public record last year alone, and 28,417 criminal cases from the public record since 2000.

What changed is the treatment of cases ending in deferred sentences, since the Rhode Island Supreme Court in November determined that some judges had been improperly waiving the waiting periods.

Deferred sentences are not uncommon, especially in cases where a defendant has negotiated a plea that spared the state a trial. And they are not limited to youthful offenders.

Such was the sentence given, for example, to one of the admitted co-conspirators in the Lincoln bribery scandal, the executive secretary for the Barrington police chief who pleaded no contest to embezzling town money, the admitted accomplice to a gunpoint robbery in Waterplace Park who traded testimony for a reduced sentence, the former director of operations at Amtrol who pleaded no contest to stealing $186,000, and the assistant Ashaway fire chief who stole prescription drugs from a home in his fire district. It was also the sentence given to the East Providence police officer who accidentally killed his commanding officer when he thought he was “dry firing” his rifle.

The notion: if they stay out of trouble for a period of time that usually runs five years, they stay out of jail.

The bill headed back to the House for further debate would “automatically quash and destroy” all public records of such crimes as soon as the deferral period — which usually runs five years — has ended. It would also end-run a November Supreme Court decision on how such cases should be viewed and treated.

That decision centered on two admitted criminals foiled by a judge in their efforts to get their records expunged. One had pleaded no contest to second-degree robbery; the other to a drug-possession charge. Both received deferred sentences. They both appealed to the high court after a judge ruled them ineligible for expungement: the first because he had committed a violent crime, and the second because she got into further trouble.

“Because they never were actually sentenced,” their lawyer argued that “they had not been convicted of any offense and therefore all records involving their arrest and plea should be erased.” But the Supreme Court disagreed, saying: since “we have reasoned that a plea of nolo contendere is an implied confession of guilt,” it follows that such a plea constitutes a conviction for purposes of weighing who is and is not eligible for expungement, even when it has been followed by a deferred sentence.”

In the wake of that decision, state court administrators have refused to disclose to The Providence Journal information they were willing to produce a year ago for a $157-an-hour fee: specifically, the amount of time that has elapsed, since conviction, before each judge-approved expungement. Spokesman Craig Berke said court administrators now believe such disclosure would be illegal.

kgregg@projo.com