Moffitt v. Commonwealth
360 S.W.3d 247
Ky. Ct. App.2012Background
- Moffitt was convicted in 2002 of kidnapping a minor under KRS 509.040(b).
- The jury verdict included an instruction linking kidnapping to an intent to commit rape or sodomy.
- Post-release, Moffitt was ordered to register for life on Kentucky’s Sex Offender Registry under SORA (KRS 17.510, 17.520).
- Moffitt challenged registration through CR 60.02/CR 60.025, arguing SORA as applied violated due process.
- The Livingston Circuit Court denied relief on August 27, 2010; Moffitt appealed.
- The issue presented is whether SORA is unconstitutional as applied to a kidnapping offense without a sexual element.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural due process | Registration is automatic; no pre-deprivation hearing due process. | Doe forecloses procedural due process challenges to automatic registry. | Procedural due process not violated; no pre-deprivation hearing required. |
| Substantive due process | Registering for a non-sex crime lacks rational basis under substantive due process. | Registration furthers public safety; kidnapping with sexual intent has a sexual element as charged. | SORA satisfies rational-basis scrutiny; not unconstitutional as applied. |
| Vagueness | Phrase 'crimes against minors' is vague as applied to Moffitt. | KRS 17.510(6) read with 17.500(3)(a) provides clear notice of offenses; not vague. | Statute provides fair notice; not void for vagueness as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Connecticut Dept. of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2003) (pre-deprivation hearing not required; focus on substantive due process)
- Hyatt v. Commonwealth, 72 S.W.3d 566 (Ky. 2002) (SORA history and state interest in public safety)
- Ladriere v. Commonwealth, 329 S.W.3d 278 (Ky. 2010) (distinguishes registrant vs. sex offender; legislative design for minors offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Baker, 295 S.W.3d 437 (Ky. 2009) (courts uphold state interest in public safety under SORA)
- Buck v. Commonwealth, 308 S.W.3d 661 (Ky. 2010) (SORA's structure and informing purposes; public safety interest)
- Miller v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 296 S.W.3d 392 (Ky. 2009) (due process considerations in state law context)
- Nash v. Commonwealth, 338 S.W.3d 264 (Ky. 2011) (SORA compliance with Wetterling Act and related history)