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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT