In re S.B.
2012 IL 112204
| Ill. | 2012Background
- S.B., a minor, faced counts including aggravated criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse.
- A fitness hearing found S.B. unfit to stand trial; a discharge hearing under 104-25(a) followed as an innocence-only proceeding.
- At discharge, victim testified; the circuit court found no acquittal on count I but found not not guilty on count II.
- State moved to require S.B. to register as a sex offender under SORA 2(A)(1)(d); the circuit court granted registration.
- Appellate Court reversed, holding no registration required; Illinois Supreme Court granted State’s appeal to resolve the issue.
- Court held: juvenile must register as a sex offender but may petition for removal under SORA 3-5.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discharge findings trigger SORA registration for a juvenile | State: SB falls under 2(A)(1)(d) as not not guilty after discharge | SB: 2(A)(1)(d) applies only to adjudicated delinquents; discharge not authorized by Juvenile Court Act | Yes, SB is a sex offender under 2(A)(1)(d) but may seek removal under 3-5 |
| Whether not not guilty juveniles fall within SORA’s scope | State: applying 2(A)(1)(d) to not not guilty juveniles is proper | SB and appellate court: absurd outcomes if not allowed removal | Applicable; but court extends to permit removal under 3-5 to avoid absurdity |
| Whether section 3-5's termination provisions apply to not not guilty juveniles | State: 3-5 should cover all required to register | SB: 3-5 contemplates adjudicated delinquents only | 3-5 read to include not not guilty juveniles for removal petitions |
| Whether 121 of the Sex Offender Community Notification Act applies to not not guilty juveniles | State: should be read to include not not guilty juveniles | SB: plain text restricts to adjudicated delinquents | Read to include not not guilty juveniles |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lavold, 262 Ill. App. 3d 984 (1994) (not not guilty discharge framework referenced)
- In re T.D.W., 109 Ill. App. 3d 852 (1982) (fitness procedures apply in juvenile proceedings)
- Carey v. Elrod, 49 Ill.2d 464 (1971) (court may read into statute to prevent absurd results)
- People v. Hanna, 207 Ill.2d 486 (2003) (statutory interpretation where literal reading yields absurdity)
- People v. Gentry, 351 Ill. App. 3d 872 (2004) (precedent on incorporation concepts in juvenile context)