ILNews

Justices accept sex-offender registry cases

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court is taking on three issues relating to sex-offender restrictions, from when juveniles can be placed on a statewide registry to whether someone can be placed on the list for life.

Justices granted transfer in the past week for three criminal cases relating specifically to sex offenders and when people convicted of those crimes must have their names put on the online-accessible public registry.

In J.C.C. v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0403-JV-266, the court is taking on a case that asks whether a Marion Superior magistrate erred in 2000 when ordering a 14-year-old boy who'd forced younger boys into various sexual acts to be placed on the state's sex-offender registry. Magistrate Christopher Piazza had determined enough evidence existed to prove that the juvenile would re-offend - a standard established in caselaw exploring differences in the adult criminal justice and juvenile delinquency systems. The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision in a Not for Publication ruling Dec. 28, 2007, also affirming that the juvenile court didn't abuse its discretion when denying a motion to set aside the adjudications.

A second case, Richard P. Wallace v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0706-CR-498, involves an issue being argued in various state courts relating to other sex-offender restrictions. Wallace is appealing a January decision from the appellate court on his failure to register as a sex offender, which he argues is unconstitutional because it's an ex post facto law and the state had forfeited the prosecutorial right because of a plea agreement. Wallace pleaded guilty to child molesting in February 1989, and was ordered to a five-year suspended sentence with probation. Years later, Wallace argued his agreement hadn't stipulated he register as a sex offender because the state statute changes that would have required him to do so weren't passed until 2001. The appeals court panel dismissed his ex post facto claims and affirmed the decision by Marion Superior Judge Lisa Borges.

In Todd L. Jensen v. State of Indiana, No. 02A04-0706-CR-351, justices will consider whether Allen Superior Judge Frances Gull correctly ordered a man classified as a sexually violent predator to register on the statewide list for life. Jensen pleaded guilty in 2000 to child molesting and vicarious sexual gratification, was sentenced to prison, and formally released from probation in July 2004. He annually registered for the Indiana Sex Offender Registry, as he was required to do for 10 years, but was informed in September 2006 that he'd have to register for life as a sexually violent predator. The trial judge considered his registration status and determined he'd have to register, but the Court of Appeals in December 2007 reversed on grounds it violated the ex post facto considerations and ordered on remand Jensen abide by the 10-year registration requirement.

Judge Cale Bradford disagreed with the majority panel of Senior Judge Jonathan Robertson and Judge John Sharpnack, writing a dissent that noted he didn't believe any violation existed and he would have affirmed the trial court decision.

He wrote, "Given the public interest in certain informational filings, it is my opinion that requiring a sexually violent predator to maintain his current address in the registry, even for a lifetime, does not rise to the level of being so punitive as to overcome its non-punitive legislative intent, that is, to monitor the whereabouts of a violent sexual predator, the necessity of which does not diminish over time."
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT