Articles on sex offenses - Page 3 of 4

Jamie mentioned yesterday that the Supreme Court decided two important cases this week. Graham v. Florida, which Jamie covered yesterday, is the blockbuster, but United States v. Comstock is also […]

I wrote about satellite-based monitoring (SBM) of sex offenders ten times in 2009. The court of appeals’ recent decision in State v. Phillips gives me my first occasion to write […]

Defendants sometimes argue, usually in sexual assault cases, that the complaining witness should not be called a “victim” during court proceedings. The basis of the argument is that using that […]

When a person over 16, using a computer or other electronic device, and with the “intent to commit an unlawful sex act, entices, advises, coerces, orders, or commands” a person […]

I have noted in numerous prior posts (most recently, here) that the statutes governing satellite-based monitoring (SBM) determination hearings (G.S. 14-208.40A and -208.40B) are unclear as to whether the court […]

I mentioned earlier that the court of appeals decided two satellite-based monitoring cases this week. I discussed State v. Morrow on Wednesday. Today I’ll cover State v. Stines. In Stines, […]

It seems like every batch of new opinions from the court of appeals includes at least one case on satellite-based monitoring (SBM) of sex offenders. Yesterday’s batch had two. State […]

I recently completed an Administration of Justice Bulletin on evidentiary issues in sex crimes cases. It’s available for free here. It covers the application of N.C. R. Evid. 412, i.e., […]

There has been an endless parade of relevant news over the past week or so. First, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in. This New York […]

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.