As previously noted, the Justice Department's Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking (SMART) occasionally posts updates on case law developments in the sex offender realm. You can view the latest update here. Here are some of the cases from Update #25:
Doe challenged the conclusive presumption of dangerousness (and the attendant registration and notification requirements for a “sexually violent offender”) that flowed from a conviction for rape. This presumption was permissible. In addition, his privacy, due process, and equal protection challenges were rejected.
Wallace v. State, 2009 Ind. LEXIS 401 (April 30, 2009) (link)
Relying in part on the decision in Doe v. State, 189 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2008), the Indiana Supreme Court held that the state’s sex offender registration and notification scheme was punitive under the Mendoza-Martinez factors and, as such, application of its requirements to an offender convicted and sentenced prior to the initial passage of the law was unconstitutional.
Jensen v. State, 2009 Ind. LEXIS 400 (April 30, 2009) (link)
Where petitioner was convicted and sentenced in 2001, and the only changes to the sex
offender registration and notification scheme since that time could fairly be characterized as
‘civil and regulatory’ under the Mendoza-Martinez factors, retroactive application of those
amended provisions was not a violation of the Ex Post Facto clause.
Commonwealth v. McBride, 2009 Ky. LEXIS 52 (April 23, 2009)
McBride was convicted of a sex offense in Tennessee and registered as a sex offender
there. He subsequently moved to Kentucky, and failed to register as a sex offender as required
by Kentucky law. Even though he was not specifically notified of his registration obligations in
Kentucky, the Court held that failure to register was a strict liability offense, and that he had an
absolute duty to register as a sex offender once he became a resident of Kentucky.
Recent Comments