In the Interest of T.H., Minor Child
913 N.W.2d 578
| Iowa | 2018Background
- A 14-year-old juvenile (T.H.) forced a 16-year-old (I.N.) to perform oral sex; she protested, bit him to escape, and reported the incident; police obtained an admission and an apology letter from T.H.
- Juvenile court adjudicated T.H. delinquent for sexual abuse in the third degree (sex act by force) and ordered placement in residential treatment; court found offense was tier III and that mandatory registry waiver was unavailable because he was 14 and the offense involved force.
- The court ordered T.H. to register as a sex offender under Iowa Code chapter 692A; registration requires in-person quarterly verification, public website disclosure, exclusion zones and employment restrictions, and possible criminal penalties for noncompliance.
- T.H. appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of force and (2) that mandatory juvenile registration (without individualized assessment) is cruel and unusual under Iowa and U.S. Constitutions.
- The court of appeals and the Iowa Supreme Court (majority) affirmed: evidence of force was sufficient, and although juvenile mandatory registration is punitive in effect, the statute is not grossly disproportionate (not cruel and unusual) under the Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that sex act was "by force" | T.H.: relationship history and invitations show encounter was consensual; victim testimony implausible/inconsistent | State: victim's testimony, T.H.'s admission to police and apology letter show he forced her head down and prevented resistance | Held: Substantial evidence supports finding the act was by force; adjudication affirmed |
| Statutory waiver/interpretation (juvenile court discretion) | T.H.: statute violates juvenile protections by denying individualized waiver for 14+ juveniles who committed aggravated offenses | State: chapter 692A requires initial mandatory registration for 14+ juveniles committing aggravated acts, but chapter 232 allows juvenile court at dispositional termination to decide whether to continue registry | Held: Juvenile court lacked discretion to waive initial registration for 14+ who used force, but may decide at termination of dispositional order whether registry should continue |
| Whether registry is "punishment" | T.H.: registry's restraints, publication, and collateral consequences make it punitive for juveniles | State: legislature's intent and protective aims are civil/nonpunitive; any punitive effects are incidental | Held: Applying Mendoza-Martinez factors, registry as applied to juveniles is sufficiently punitive in effect (affirmative restraints, public branding, excessiveness) |
| Cruel and unusual (Eighth/Iowa Const.) | T.H.: automatic mandatory registry for juveniles is grossly disproportionate given adolescents' diminished culpability and low recidivism; requires individualized Miller-type review | State: registry is aimed at public protection, tied to rehabilitation timeframe, and not grossly disproportionate | Held: Although registry is punitive as applied to juveniles, the statute's period-limited application during the dispositional order and juvenile-court review at termination avoids gross disproportionality; not cruel and unusual |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 2005) (analyzing punitive effect of sex-offender restrictions and legislative intent)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003) (holding Alaska registry nonpunitive and outlining Mendoza-Martinez framework)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (recognizing diminished culpability of juveniles)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (juvenile sentencing proportionality principles)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (juvenile sentencing and need for individualized consideration)
- In re C.P., 131 Ohio St.3d 513, 967 N.E.2d 729 (Ohio 2012) (holding automatic lifetime juvenile registry unconstitutional)
- State v. Crooks, 911 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 2018) (reviewing punitive/regulatory distinction and juvenile considerations)
- State v. Dull, 302 Kan. 32, 351 P.3d 641 (Kan. 2015) (finding mandatory lifetime postrelease supervision for juveniles cruel and unusual)
- In re J.B., 630 Pa. 408, 107 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014) (invalidating SORNA-style lifetime juvenile registration on due process grounds)