Coweta man’s removal from sex-offender registry upheld

1-20-16 Georgia:

The Supreme Court of Georgia on Monday unanimously upheld a ruling that a Coweta man who pleaded guilty to child molestation in 1993 may be removed from the state’s sex offender registry.

Blake Randle pleaded guilty in Coweta County to one count of child molestation for touching the privates of a 10-year-old boy when Randle was 19 years old.

Randle received an eight-year sentence with the first three to be served in confinement followed by five years on probation. As a result of his conviction, he was required to register as a sex offender.

After serving his sentence and being released from probation in 2001, he filed a petition for release from the sex offender registration requirements in 2013.

Under Georgia law, a defendant may file such a petition if 10 years have elapsed since he completed his sentence, and if six criteria are met under another statute.

During a hearing, evidence presented showed that Randle had committed no other crimes, had completed all required sex offender treatment, had not violated probation and had “done well while on probation and as well in his treatment,” according to a summary of opinion released by the Georgia Supreme Court.

The opinion stated:

At 42 years old, Randle testified he had been physical custodian of his 14-year-old daughter for five years, had been working in the technology field for 15 years, provided for himself and his daughter, and had continued treatment after his probation ended because he “felt that it was very helpful.”

Randall testified that he wanted to be removed from the sex offender registry so his daughter would not be bullied by those who might find his registration online and because signs with his picture identifying him as a sex offender who “lives here” had been left in his yard, according to briefs filed in the case.

Under cross-examination, Randle admitted that given his victim’s age, the child likely had not enjoyed the touching.

Following the hearing, the trial judge granted Randle’s petition, noting that as a judge, he had never released someone from the sex offender registration requirements.

Because Randle’s offense had occurred 21 years earlier, and there had been no other incidents since then, the judge was “convinced that this will never happen again.”

In the Court of Appeals, the State then argued that Randle's act of touching necessarily resulted in the victim suffering “intentional physical harm,” and “contemplates conduct that goes beyond offensive and unwanted touching and involves the intentional infliction of physical pain or injury upon the victim.”

The dissent, on the other hand, concluded that intentional physical contact of any type constitutes “intentional physical harm” that would preclude an offender’s removal from the registry.

The State then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court, which agreed to review the case to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in its interpretation of “intentional physical harm.”

“The issue before us is whether the phrase ‘intentional physical harm’ in this context includes physical contact that, while offensive and unwelcome, resulted in no physical pain or injury,” the court said.

“We conclude that it does not, and we therefore affirm the Court of Appeals in its affirmance of the superior court’s order granting Randle’s petition for removal from the sex offender registry.”

Contacted Tuesday, Christa Kirk, attorney for Randle, said that she believes the court got it right – citing her belief that by limiting the definition of harm, it would make it impossible for anyone to ever be removed from the list.

“You have to be very careful in the law to change the definition of terms to suit how the prosecution moves forward with a case,” Kirk said.

“The argument was that this was a sex offender registry removal,” she continued. “Their argument wanted 'physical harm' to include touching, but there is no physical injury."

Regardless of the outcome, Coweta Circuit District Attorney Pete Skandalakis said that he respects the decision of the Supreme Court, and the issue of what constitutes physical harm was an important issue to tackle.

“This is an issue that was never really settled by the courts in Georgia so we decided to take it up and have the supreme court answer it,” Skandalakis said. “Many of us feel that even though a child may not be physically harmed, it’s an intentional injury to the victim, and they suffer long-lasting harm because of it.” ..Source.. by Clay Neely