INDIANAPOLIS | Indiana law, since 2006, has required sex offenders who must register in their home states to also register in Indiana if they relocate to the Hoosier State.
But does a new Hoosier who committed a sex crime elsewhere prior to 2006 still have to register in Indiana? Or is that an unconstitutional "ex post facto" law that imposes a punishment that didn't exist when the crime was committed?
The Indiana Supreme Court wrestled with those questions during oral arguments in two cases Thursday, including one that could put a Merrillville man at risk of three years in prison for failing to register as a sex offender.
Sidney Tyson, now 27, was adjudged a juvenile delinquent as a 13-year-old in Texas for sexually assaulting a 10-year-old. He served two years probation and was required to register as a sex offender in Texas until 2014.
Tyson moved to Indiana in 2009.
In 2012, he was stopped by Merrillville police for driving a vehicle with an expired license plate and ultimately arrested for failing to register as a sex offender in Indiana, as required by the 2006 statute.
His trial on that Class D felony charge is on hold while his challenge to the law is pending. In March, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 that Tyson's trial should go forward.
At the Supreme Court, Tyson's attorney, Kristin Mulholland, argued it is unconstitutional for Indiana to require Tyson to register since his 2002 conviction preceded the 2006 law mandating registration of out-of-state sex offenders who move to Indiana.
"You need to look at the date the offense was committed to determine if the law is ex post facto," she said.
However, Deputy Attorney General J.T. Whitehead countered that what matters is the date Tyson moved to Indiana.
In 2009, Tyson had plenty of notice that under the 2006 Hoosier law he would be required to register in Indiana until his Texas registration requirement ended, Whitehead said.
That argument appeared to resonate with Justice Mark Massa, who suggested Indiana's registration requirement for newly-arrived sex offenders is no more burdensome than their obligations to their home states.
But Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, seemed to believe the Indiana law clearly is being applied retroactively and further analysis is needed to determine whether it is unconstitutionally punitive.
Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justice Steven David both wondered whether that will require Indiana courts to review the convictions of every sex offender who moves to the state.
Or, if the law is found to be ex post facto, whether Indiana will become a haven for unregistered sex offenders.
Separately, Mulholland claimed the Indiana registration requirement only applies to juvenile sex offenders who were at least 14 years old at the time of their crimes, and as a result would not apply to Tyson.
Whitehead told the five justices that is a misreading of the statute, and since Tyson came to Indiana after turning 14 the out-of-state registration requirement absolutely applies.
A ruling by the state's high court is expected early next year. ..Source.. by Dan Carden
No comments:
Post a Comment
We use the Disqus Commenting system, please wait for it to load. Also, comments are moderated, please stick to the issue of the post, as we are trying to have an intelligent, relevant discussion which develops the post. Comments deviating from topic of post will not be posted. Thanks