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 The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision in a Not for Publication ruling Dec. 28, 2007, also affirming that the juvenile court didn't abuse its discretion when denying a motion to set aside the adjudications.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

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT