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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT