ILNews

Ankle bracelet excuse fails in court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A sex offender cannot use an ankle monitor as an excuse for failing to update his address on the sex offender registry, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

Justin Taylor pleaded guilty to Class C felony child molesting and was released from incarceration in June 2009. At that time, he was told he was required to register with the Sex and Violent Offender Registry in Marion County for 10 years. The registry mandated Taylor provided his current address and update it within three days if he moved.

Taylor was arrested again in May 2011 and convicted of criminal confinement. He was release to home detention on Aug. 29, 2011.

In September, the compliance officer learned Taylor was not living at either of the addresses listed on the sex offender registry. Taylor was subsequently arrested and charged with a Class D felony failure to register as a sex offender.

The trial court found him guilty.

Taylor did not dispute he did not update his registry when he was placed on house arrest, but he claimed he did not knowingly or intentionally fail to register because he was not aware he was required to register. He assumed with an ankle bracelet and other means, the state was closely monitoring him.

In Justin Taylor v. State of Indiana, 49A05-1201-CR-4, the COA found his argument without merit and affirmed Taylor’s his conviction.

The state presented evidence Taylor received notice after his release that he was required to register as a sex offender for 10 years. Also in June 2009 and again in July 2009, he signed the form, which displayed in bold letters “FAILURE TO COMPLY IS A CLASS D FELONY.”

Judge Melissa May wrote, “Taylor’s signature acknowledged he understood that language, and he did comply with the requirements when he first registered as a sex offender. Any argument Taylor offers to the contrary is an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • BS
    Failure to register should be a misdemeanor that carries a small fine! Class D felony my ass, our lawmakers are idiots tyhjat think the can make any law about anything in clear violation of the constitution!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT