ILNews

Justices issue sex-offender registration rulings

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Convicted sex offenders who've already served their sentences can't be forced to register for life by a newly enacted statute, but the Indiana Supreme Court is split on whether that lifetime requirement should be imposed on offenders who are still registering when the law is changed.

The state's highest court ruled on two companion cases today analyzing the Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act, a combination of statutes requiring defendants convicted of sex and certain other offenses to register with local law enforcement and disclose personal information. The cases are Richard P. Wallace v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-0803-CR-138, and Todd Jensen v. State of Indiana, No. 02S04-0803-CR-137. Justices heard combined arguments May 15, 2008.

Wallace pleaded guilty to a sex offense against a child in 1989, and after serving his five-year sentence and probation he learned from law enforcement that new laws passed in 1994 and 2001 required him to register for life as a sex offender. He didn't register and was later convicted by a jury in 2007 for felony failure to register. The Court of Appeals rejected his arguments last year and affirmed the trial court.

In Jensen, the 1999 crimes resulted in the Allen County man being charged with child molesting counts and vicarious sexual gratification. He pleaded guilty in 2000 and received a sentence of three years in prison and three years probation, as well as having to register for 10 years after his time served.

Both argued the Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act violates the ex post facto prohibitions of both the Indiana and U.S. Constitutions because they'd committed the crime, been convicted, received sentences, and served them before any registration or notification was required. In Wallace's case, he'd served his entire sentence; Jensen had completed his prison time and probation, but was still continuing with his previously agreed to 10-year registration requirement.

Justice Robert D. Rucker authored both opinions, relying on seven factors laid out by the Supreme Court of the United States in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69 (1963), about whether the statute is punitive or non-punitive.

In the unanimous, 18-page Wallace ruling, Justice Rucker wrote that the act in question "imposes burdens that have the effect of adding punishment beyond that which would have been imposed when his crime was committed." That decision reversed the judgment by Marion Superior Judge Lisa Borges.

But in the 13-page Jensen ruling, Justice Rucker and Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard concurred in finding that Allen Superior Judge Fran Gull was correct in her decision that Jensen be classified as a sexually violent predator and be required to register for life. Justice Frank Sullivan concurred in result with a separate opinion, while Justices Theodore Boehm and Brent Dickson dissented in their own opinion.

"We hold today in Wallace v. State that the registration requirement is punitive and therefore cannot constitutionally be applied to a person whose crime occurred before the statute was enacted," Justice Boehm wrote in Jensen. "The majority holds that the same conclusion does not apply to a person whose crime occurred at a time when only a ten-year registration was required. It is beyond dispute that a law extending the period of incarceration for a crime cannot apply to persons whose offense predates the effective date of that legislation .... It seems to me that if the registration requirement is punitive, extending its period is no less additional punishment than extending a period of incarceration, and equally violates the constitutional ban on ex post facto legislation."

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT