ILNews

COA reverses predator's lifetime registration

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals upheld a defendant's convictions and sentence for multiple sexual offenses but reversed the trial court's determination he is a sexually violent predator requiring lifetime registration, citing the statute that was in place during the time the crime happened should dictate the defendant's predator status.

In Anthony Thompson v. State of Indiana, 03A01-0610-CR-430, Thompson appealed his convictions and sentence of 63 years for sexual offenses against the victim, as well as his status as a lifetime sexually violent predator.

Thompson argued prosecutorial misconduct happened during his trial when the prosecutor told the court information beyond what the pre-sentence report stated. The prosecutor said Thompson attempted to set his own family's home on fire, but the attempted arson actually happened to the three cars parked in the driveway. When discussing Thompson's 2002 arson charge, the prosecutor said he set fire to the home in which he was living. Thompson claimed there was nothing showing that incident was anything more than negligence.

These statements by the prosecutor happened during arguments and were not presented as evidence, so they could not influence the jury, wrote Senior Judge Patrick Sullivan in the opinion. The court concluded there is no basis for reversal of Thompson's sentence based on the prosecutor's comments.

The court also found his sentences to be appropriate given the nature of the offense and Thompson's character. He bound, abducted, and sexually assaulted the 15-year-old sister of his girlfriend and threatened to kill her if she told anyone.

The appeals court did reverse the trial court's determination that Thompson is a sexually violent predator who is required to be registered for life. Thompson committed the crimes in February 2005 but was not sentenced until September 2006. The Indiana General Assembly amended the statute effective July 1, 2006, and the court concluded the new law requiring lifetime registration could not be applied to Thompson.

Thompson was appropriately determined to be a sexually violent predator under the previous statute, Indiana Code 5-2-12-13, which would require him to register for an indefinite period and allow for a board of experts to determine if a person could no longer be considered a sexually violent predator. However, the trial court followed the new statute 11-8-8-19, requiring he register for life.

The court reversed the sexually violent predator determination requiring him to register for life because the requirement runs "afoul of ex post facto considerations," Senior Judge Sullivan wrote.

The court remanded with instructions to amend the registration requirement to be for an indefinite period subject to the right of Thompson to seek a determination in the future that he is no longer a sexually violent predator.
ADVERTISEMENT

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT