People v. Rufus T., 949 N.E.2d 277

Rufus T. was adjudicated delinquent in 1999 for admitted attempted aggravated criminal sexual assault of a child under nine and was ordered to register as a sex offender.
In 2008 Rufus filed a pro se petition to terminate his sex offender registration; the trial court denied the petition in 2009.
Defense sought to file an updated petition and discussed that a risk assessment might be required but funding was unavailable due to budget constraints.
At an August 2009 hearing Rufus testified about rehabilitation and current age; he sought removal to ease employment and educational prospects.
The State and witnesses described the victim, Rufus’s past offenses, and Rufus’s history; the trial court concluded Rufus posed a risk to the community and denied removal.
On appeal Rufus challenged whether section 3-5(e)(1)’s risk assessment is mandatory or directory and whether indigence required theState to pay for the assessment; the court held the provision is directory and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 730 ILCS 150/3-5(e)(1) risk assessment is mandatory or directory	Rufus argues mandatory	People argues directory	Directory
Whether the failure to obtain a risk assessment invalidates the petition decision	Rufus asserts error from not considering risk assessment	People contends other factors suffice	Affirmed without reversal

In re J.W., 204 Ill.2d 50 (2003) (juveniles and registration context; statutory interpretation guidance)
People v. Robinson, 217 Ill.2d 43 (2005) (mandatory vs directory analysis; use of 'shall' not determinative)
People v. Delvillar, 235 Ill.2d 507 (2009) (directory vs mandatory reading; seven-factor framework)
Landis v. Marc Realty, L.L.C., 235 Ill.2d 1 (2009) (statutory interpretation; absurd results presumption)
People v. Lawson, 163 Ill.2d 187 (1994) (indigent defense; expert witnesses and funding)