People in the Interest of J.O, 383 P.3d 69

J.O., age 15, was adjudicated delinquent for four offenses: unlawful sexual contact, attempted unlawful sexual contact, and two counts of indecent exposure.
As part of the adjudication, a magistrate ordered J.O. to register as a sex offender; the district court adopted that ruling on review.
The central legal questions on appeal were (i) sufficiency of the evidence for the adjudication, (ii) whether J.O. qualified for discretionary exemption from registration under §16-22-103(5)(a)(III), and (iii) whether registration violated the Eighth Amendment.
The court held that J.O. did not meet the first-offense criterion because he was adjudicated for both misdemeanor unlawful sexual contact and indecent exposure (not a single first offense), thus no discretionary exemption.
The court also held that sex offender registration is not punishment and does not violate the Eighth Amendment, and that there was sufficient evidence to support the adjudication.
The judgment was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the evidence support the adjudication?	J.O. contends the evidence fails to prove requisite intent.	People contends the evidence is sufficient to sustain the adjudication.	Yes; evidence sufficient to sustain.
Did J.O. meet the first-offense criterion for exemption from registration under §16-22-103(5)(a)(III)?	J.O. and AG agree only the first-offense issue is in dispute; the offenses were multiple convictions in one proceeding.	J.O. did not meet the first-offense criterion because he was adjudicated for both misdemeanor unlawful sexual contact and indecent exposure.	No; J.O. did not meet the criterion and exemption denied.
Does mandatory sex offender registration for J.O. violate the Eighth Amendment?	J.O. argues registration is punitive and thus unconstitutional for juveniles.	Registration is nonpunitive and does not implicate Eighth Amendment protections.	No; registration is nonpunitive and constitutional.

People v. Randall, 711 P.2d 689 (Colo. 1985) (indecent exposure requires probable offense under objective standard)
People v. Vigil, 127 P.3d 916 (Colo. 2006) (no specific sexual intent required for unlawful sexual contact)
State v. Barrus, 232 P.3d 264 (Colo. App. 2009) (indecent exposure elements; likelihood to affront/alarm examined)
Shaw v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 605 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2010) (or vs. and/or; inclusive vs. exclusive interpretation in drafting)
United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2012) (SORNA not punitive toward juveniles; nonpunitive regulation)
United States v. Under Seal, 709 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2013) (SORNA non-punitive regulatory scheme for juveniles)
In re Ronnie A., 585 S.E.2d 311 (S.C. 2003) (juvenile sex-offender registration nonpunitive in several jurisdictions)
Pifer, 2014 COA 93 (Colo. App. 2014) (adjudications and evidence standards (Colo. App. 2014))