ILNews

Judges reverse, reinstate sex-offender conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a man’s conviction of failing to register as a sex offender based on a lack of evidence showing the man had a connection to Indiana 90 days after his last registration. The appellate court did reinstate a vacated conviction for failing to notify law enforcement of his move within 72 hours.

Michael E. Johnson appealed his Class C felony conviction of failing to register as a sex offender, which was enhanced because of a prior conviction. As a sexually violent predator, he was required to register with law enforcement and have his picture taken every 90 days, and let officials know of changes in his address within 72 hours of moving.

In October 2008, Johnson reported in person to change his address; the next month he moved out of state without informing law enforcement. He was arrested several months later when he was visiting a friend in Indianapolis. He was charged with and found guilty on three counts: failing to update registration every 90 days; failing to update his address within 72 hours; and failing to reside at the address he registered. The trial court only entered a judgment of conviction on the first count.

In Michael E. Johnson v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0909-CR-908, the appellate court ruled the evidence doesn’t support Johnson’s conviction of failing to update his registration every 90 days. Based on Indiana Code, Johnson was only required to register 90 days after October 2008 if he was living in, working in, or going to school in Indiana, which the state didn’t prove.

But the appellate court reinstated Johnson’s conviction based on Count II because he didn’t notify officials of his change of address within 72 hours. Even though Indiana Code Section 11-8-8-11 doesn’t expressly say that a sex offender has to let law enforcement know of a change in address when he moves out of state, subsection (e) requires local law enforcement to notify the state police in the new state of the sex offender’s new place of residence.

“The only way to read the statute as a whole and avoid an absurd result is to read it to require that the sex offender notify the local law enforcement authority having jurisdiction over the sex offender at his current principal address of his move out of state and his new address,” wrote Judge Edward Najam. “Only then can the local law enforcement authority comply with subsection (e) and notify the state police in the new state.”

The appellate court remanded for the conviction on Count II to be reinstated and for Johnson to be sentenced accordingly with any credit given for time served on the vacated conviction based on Count I.

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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. 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?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT