502 S.W.3d 756
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Ricky Lee Strosnider pleaded guilty in 2006 to second-degree child molestation (misdemeanor). Victim was 15; plaintiff was 18; no force was used.
- At the time, §589.400 required registration on the sex-offender registry within ten days of being placed on probation (later shortened by amendment). Registration is generally lifelong unless removed under statutory exceptions.
- §589.400.8 permits a registrant to petition for removal after two years if the offender was ≤19, the victim was ≥13, and no force was used; §589.400.9(1) conditions relief on a showing that the petitioner “has complied with the provisions of this section.”
- Plaintiff first registered in December 2014; he acknowledged a prior criminal charge for failure to register that was later dismissed. He testified he was never told to register at the time of his plea/probation. No other evidence or exhibits were introduced.
- The trial court found Plaintiff met the age/victim/no-force criteria and was not a threat to public safety, but concluded Plaintiff had not complied with §589.400 because he failed to register within ten days of probation and thus the court lacked authority to grant removal. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider was denied; he appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may obtain removal under §589.400.8 despite failing to timely register if the failure was not knowing | Strosnider: relief should be available because he did not knowingly fail to comply; criminal mens rea should inform the civil removal standard | Replogle: §589.400.9(1) requires actual compliance with the statute as a prerequisite; no exception for innocent or unknowing noncompliance | Court: denied — plain statutory text requires compliance; court will not read in a "not knowingly" exception; appeal affirmed |
| Whether the plea court’s alleged failure to notify plaintiff of registration duty excuses noncompliance or alters removal eligibility | Strosnider: he cannot be penalized for the plea court’s alleged failure to inform/report, so he should not be barred from relief | Replogle: individuals are presumed to know the law; failure to comply is not excused by alleged court omissions absent legislative authorization | Court: rejected plaintiff’s argument — no authority to modify statutory removal prerequisites due to alleged plea-court omission |
| Whether principles of criminal mens rea apply to the civil removal process under Chapter 589 | Strosnider: analogizes to criminal statute requiring knowledge for failure-to-register offenses and urges similar mens rea for civil relief | Replogle: civil removal scheme is distinct; statutory language controls and creates discretionary civil relief that requires compliance, not mens rea | Court: held criminal mens rea in §589.425 does not import into §589.400 civil removal process; statutory construction controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Andresen v. Bd. of Regents of Mo. W. State Coll., 58 S.W.3d 581 (Mo. App. 2001) (standard of review for declaratory-judgment/court-tried cases)
- State ex rel. Young v. Wood, 254 S.W.3d 871 (Mo. banc 2008) (statutory interpretation: give effect to plain language; courts cannot add words)
- Horning v. White, 314 S.W.3d 381 (Mo. App. 2010) (§589.400 creates a civil action for removal)
- Lafferty v. Rhudy, 878 S.W.2d 833 (Mo. App. 1994) (court will not expand criminal statute beyond legislative intent to create new civil remedies)
- Frye v. Levy, 440 S.W.3d 405 (Mo. banc 2014) (courts lack authority to impose sanctions or alter deadlines/mandates not provided by legislature)
- Grace v. Mo. Gaming Comm’n, 51 S.W.3d 891 (Mo. App. 2001) (individuals are presumed to know the law)
- State v. Jacobs, 421 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (discussion of mens rea in failure-to-register context)
- State v. Younger, 386 S.W.3d 848 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (addressing culpable mental state supply for failure-to-register offenses)