275 So. 3d 267
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Juvenile N.J. was alleged in Sept. 2017 to have committed, among other offenses, second-degree kidnapping and armed robbery; adjudicated delinquent on kidnapping and robbery and committed to juvenile custody until age 21.
- The State requested at disposition that the court notify N.J. he must register as a sex offender under La. Ch. Code art. 884.1(A)(5) because the victim was allegedly 12.
- The juvenile court denied the request, reasoning the victim’s age was not properly noticed/pleaded as an element and that the child was entitled to pre-adjudication notice of evidentiary matters that would trigger registration.
- The State appealed the denial, arguing victim age is not an element of second-degree kidnapping and the court was required to provide the statutorily mandated post-adjudication notice.
- The appellate court analyzed statutory text, legislative changes to La. R.S. 15:543, constitutional limits (Apprendi), and the remedial, nonpunitive nature of sex-registration laws.
- Court reversed insofar as the juvenile was not notified and remanded with instructions to provide written registration notice under La. Ch. Code art. 884.1(A)(5) and file proof in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court must notify N.J. of sex-offender registration after adjudication for 2nd-degree kidnapping of a child under 13 | State: Victim was 12 per CAC interview; statute requires post-adjudication notice for second-degree kidnapping of child under 13, so court must notify | N.J.: Victim age not an element; court should have had pre-adjudication notice that age would be proved; defense objected to post-adjudication proof | Held: Reversed/ remanded — court should consider evidence of victim's age post-adjudication and provide statutory written notice and file proof |
| Whether victim age must be alleged/charged pre-adjudication to trigger registration notice | State: No — art. 884.1 requires notice upon adjudication or admission, not pre-trial pleading | N.J.: Due process/Apprendi concerns; fair notice required before adjudication | Held: Age is not an element that increases penal exposure here; statutory text controls — notice is required after adjudication, not before |
| Whether Apprendi requires jury finding of victim age before registration notification | N.J.: Apprendi/Blakely require facts increasing maximum penalty to be charged/ jury-tried | State: Registration is remedial/civil, not punitive; Apprendi inapplicable | Held: Registration scheme is nonpunitive; Apprendi does not bar post-adjudication registration notice |
| Whether juvenile court may refuse to accept post-adjudication evidence of victim age | N.J.: Court expressed fairness concerns and burden of registration; defense objected to late proof | State: Presented CAC interview showing age 12 | Held: Court erred in refusing to consider evidence; remanded to receive evidence and issue written notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (constitutional rule that facts increasing statutory maximum must be charged and proved by jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (clarifies statutory-maximum analysis for Apprendi purposes)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (sex-offender registration is civil/remedial, not punitive)
- State v. I.C.S., 145 So.3d 350 (La. decision recognizing registration scheme remedial)
- State ex rel. D.J., 817 So.2d 26 (juvenile delinquency proceedings are civil/noncriminal)
- State ex rel. Olivieri, 779 So.2d 735 (La. Supreme Court: registration/notification nonpunitive; not ex post facto)
- State v. Trosclair, 89 So.3d 340 (reaffirming civil nature of sex-registration restrictions)
- State v. Payan, 765 N.W.2d 192 (Neb. sup. ct. rejecting Apprendi challenge to registration statute)
- Young v. State, 806 A.2d 233 (Md. court holding age-triggered registration is nonpunitive for Apprendi purposes)