28 N.E.3d 1074
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Tyson was adjudicated delinquent in Texas for aggravated sexual assault (offense date Aug 22, 2001); Texas required him to register as a sex offender from Feb 27, 2002 to Feb 19, 2014.
- Tyson moved to Indiana in 2009. Indiana amended SORA in 2006 to define “sex offender” to include a person required to register in any jurisdiction.
- In Dec 2012 police discovered Tyson had not registered in Indiana; he was charged Jan 17, 2013 with Class D felony failure to register.
- Tyson moved to dismiss, arguing SORA as applied to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses because Indiana’s earlier law would not have required a 13‑year‑old to register at the time of his Texas offense.
- Trial court denied the motion; Tyson pursued an interlocutory appeal challenging that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying Indiana SORA to Tyson violates the ex post facto prohibition | State: SORA’s 2006 amendment validly required out‑of‑state registrants who relocate to Indiana to register; no ex post facto violation because Tyson remained subject to registration | Tyson: He lacked fair warning at the time of his offense because Indiana’s pre‑2006 law would not have required registration; 2006 amendment imposes new punishment retroactively | Court: Affirmed—no ex post facto violation; Tyson was already required to register in Texas and SORA’s 2006 provision merely preserved that duty upon relocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1981) (defines ex post facto prohibition as forbidding laws that impose punishment not in place when the act occurred or increase punishment)
- Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277 (U.S. 1866) (historical exposition of ex post facto principles)
- Hevner v. State, 919 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 2010) (fair‑warning principle underlying Ex Post Facto Clause)
- Armstrong v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1088 (Ind. 2006) (discusses notice and ex post facto concerns under Indiana law)
- United States v. Brady, 26 F.3d 282 (2d Cir. 1994) (asks whether a law changes legal consequences of completed acts)
- Sewell v. State, 973 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (ex post facto standard: law that punishes previously nonpunishable acts or increases punishment)