425 P.3d 115
Alaska2018Background
- Two consolidated cases: Doe I (Washington convictions under RCW 9.68A.090) and Doe II (California conviction under Cal. Penal Code §647.6(a)).
- DPS required both men to register in Alaska as sex offenders based on out-of-state convictions; Doe I sought declaratory relief, Doe II appealed an administrative determination.
- Alaska defines "sex offense" to include crimes under certain Alaska statutes or a "similar law of another jurisdiction" (AS 12.63.100(6)(C)).
- The court applied a categorical comparison of statutory elements (not the underlying conduct) to decide similarity.
- Court concluded both out-of-state statutes are broader than the Alaska offense charged (attempted sexual abuse of a minor, AS 11.31.100 & AS 11.41.436(a)(2)) and therefore not "similar."
- Result: affirm Doe I (no Alaska registration) and reverse/remand Doe II (remove from registry).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 9.68A.090 (communicating with a minor for immoral purposes) is similar to Alaska attempted sexual abuse of a minor | Doe I: Washington statute is not similar; Alaska registration not triggered | DPS: Washington law targets predatory sexual communication with minors and is similar enough to Alaska law | Held: Not similar — Washington statute is broader (words or conduct; victim age up to 18) so Doe I need not register |
| Whether Cal. Penal Code §647.6(a) (annoying or molesting child) is similar to Alaska attempted sexual abuse of a minor | Doe II: California statute is not similar; conviction does not fit Alaska elements | DPS: California statute covers sexual misconduct toward minors and is similar for registration | Held: Not similar — California statute criminalizes broader conduct (includes lewd exposure/annoying conduct; victim age up to 17) so Doe II need not register |
| Proper interpretive approach: categorical (statutory-elements only) vs. law-plus-conduct (consult conviction record) | Plaintiffs: rely on categorical comparison to avoid registry where statutes differ | DPS: urged consideration of facts/record to effectuate ASORA's protective purpose | Held: Categorical approach applies—compare statutes' elements; court declines to adopt broad fact‑based review here |
| Meaning of "similar" in AS 12.63.100(6)(C) | Plaintiffs: "similar" should be read to require elemental resemblance | DPS: legislative purpose supports a broad, fact-sensitive reading to capture more out-of-state offenders | Held: "Similar" permits a relatively broad reading but requires categorical elemental resemblance with no significant differences; not so broad as to permit consideration of all underlying conduct here |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. State, 158 Idaho 778, 352 P.3d 500 (Idaho 2015) (construing out-of-state registration consequences and equivalency language)
- State v. Hosier, 157 Wash.2d 1, 133 P.3d 936 (Wash. 2006) (definition and scope of Washington "communicate"/"immoral purpose" statutes)
- State v. Hall, 294 P.3d 1235 (N.M. 2012) (New Mexico approach permitting limited review of conviction records to determine equivalency)
- State v. Lloyd, 132 Ohio St.3d 135, 970 N.E.2d 870 (Ohio 2012) (permitting a limited record review when statutory comparison is inconclusive)
- Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 612, 925 N.E.2d 533 (Mass. 2010) (defining "like violation" as elements the same or nearly the same for registration)