ILNews

Justices overturn man's registration requirement

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Grant Superior judge erred in sentencing a man to register as a sex offender because that requirement wasn't in place at the time he committed his crime, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled.

In the opinion released Wednesday, Gary M. Hevner v. State of Indiana, No. 27S02-1001-CR-5, Gary Hevner challenged the part of his sentence that required him to register as a sex offender for committing possession of child pornography as a Class D felony in 2005. This was Hevner's first offense under the statute. At the time he committed the offense, a person convicted for the first time of possessing child pornography wasn't considered a sex offender and wasn't required to register as one. But Hevner's trial began in 2008, after the Indiana Sex Offender Registration Act was amended to require anyone convicted of possession of child pornography to register, regardless of the number of convictions.

He appealed his sentence, claiming the registration requirement violated the ex post facto prohibitions of the federal and state constitutions. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, but the justices decided the requirement violated only the Indiana Constitution because the United States Supreme Court had recently upheld Alaska's Sex Offender Registration Act didn't violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution. Indiana and Alaska have similar acts.

Using an "intent-effects" test, the justices ruled the registration requirement was punitive in effect. The court should have sentenced Hevner under the statute in effect on the date he committed the offense, wrote Justice Robert Rucker.

"As applied to Hevner the Act violates the prohibition on ex post facto laws contained in the Indiana Constitution because it imposes burdens that have the effect of adding punishment beyond that which could have been imposed when the crime was committed," he wrote.

Hevner also challenged the condition of his probation that he can't live within 1,000 feet of a school. The high court noted the record isn't entirely clear that the trial court imposed that restriction; however, the justices concluded that condition isn't an unreasonable condition. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT