BLOG
Donna Defendant’s license was revoked on May 1, 2007 upon her conviction of driving after consuming in violation of G.S. 20-13.2. On January 15, 2008, Donna Defendant was charged with […]
The Ninth Circuit recently decided United States v. Payton, a computer search case that quietly adopts some pretty radical ideas. Based on the lack of comments on my previous computer […]
Several months ago, an attorney contacted me to ask whether a particular drug was on one of controlled substance schedules, and if so, which one. I did the obvious: I looked at […]
Several recent news stories that may be of interest: 1. Governor Perdue just signed S 920, which makes substantial changes to the probation laws. For example, it requires all probationers […]
Remember State v. Byrd, the case that held that ex parte domestic violence TROs aren’t “protective orders” under Chapter 50B? I blogged about it here, and I highlighted a more […]
by School of Government faculty member Jamie Markham There are two categories of sex offenders subject to satellite-based monitoring: those subject to lifetime monitoring, and those subject to monitoring for […]
I am reluctant to dip my toes into the waters of controversy swirling around the arrest of Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, but it provides a useful framework for discussing […]
In my last post on this topic, I addressed the “new rule” prong of Teague retroactivity analysis as it applies to Melendez-Diaz. I ended that post by noting that another […]
Jeff Welty blogged here and Jessica Smith published a paper here about the implications of the Supreme Court’s holding in Melendez-Diaz that forensic laboratory reports are testimonial, rendering the affiants […]
by School of Government faculty member Jamie Markham
Last month I taught a session for the superior court judges on sex offender registration and monitoring. The handout I used included a set of exercises that we didn’t have time to get through in the session, so I promised the judges I would distribute answers. But why should they get to have all the fun? The exercises follow, with answers after the jump. My sex offender registration and monitoring flow chart is available here if you need it. Page Two, Side Two of form AOC-CR-603 might also come in handy. Finally, for those interested in additional reading, the full handout I used in the session is available here and a related handout from another session is available here.
1. Which of the following offenders are subject to sex offender registration?
a. A defendant is convicted of sexual battery on January 15, 2008, based on acts that occurred on October 5, 2005.
b. A defendant is convicted of crime against nature on November 12, 2008, based on acts that occurred on July 1, 2008.
c. A defendant released from prison on July 1, 1996 after serving a 15-month sentence for an April 1995 conviction for taking indecent liberties with children.
2. A defendant pleads guilty to assault on a female based on acts involving his 12-year-old step-daughter. He pushed her after she refused his sexual advances. He is sentenced to 36 months of probation.
a. Is this a reportable conviction?
b. Is the defendant subject to any special conditions of probation?
3. A person subject to the 30-year sex offender registration requirement was arrested and charged with failure to register when he didn’t respond to a semiannual verification form as required in G.S. 14-208.11. Can this offender successfully petition to terminate his registration requirement after 10 years under G.S. 14-208.12A?
4. In 2009, a defendant is convicted of first-degree rape based on an offense that occurred July 1, 2000. The victim was a 25-year-old woman.
a. Is this a reportable conviction? If so, how long must this offender register?
b. Is the offender subject to satellite-based monitoring? If so, for how long?
c. Suppose the victim was a 16-year-old girl. Does this change your answer to (b)?
5. A 19-year-old defendant pleads guilty to taking indecent liberties with a 13-year-old girl. The offense, which involved consensual oral sex, took place January 12, 2009.
a. Is the offender subject to satellite-based monitoring? If so, for how long?
b. Suppose the victim was 11. Does this change your answer to (a)?
6. A defendant was convicted for taking indecent liberties in 1989. He was later convicted again for taking indecent liberties in 2005, given an active sentence, and released from prison in 2008. Is he subject to lifetime registration and lifetime satellite based monitoring as a recidivist?
7. In 2009, a defendant is convicted of felony indecent exposure under G.S. 14-190.9(a1). The victim was a 10-year-old girl. At sentencing you determine that the offender is not a recidivist, aggravated offender, or sexually violent predator. You do, however, find that the defendant committed an act involving the sexual abuse of a minor, so you order DOC to complete a risk assessment.
a. Do you wait for DOC to complete the risk assessment before sentencing the defendant? (G.S. 14-208.40A(d) says DOC shall have 30 to 60 days to complete the assessment and report the results.)
b. Suppose the assessment comes back MODERATE. What are your options?
c. Suppose the assessment comes back HIGH. What are your options?
Again, the answers are after the jump.