State v. Clark
117 So. 3d 1246
La.2013Background
- Defendant was charged in 2010 with failing to maintain registration as a sex offender under La.R.S. 15:542 for not appearing for quarterly registration in Jefferson Parish.
- Defendant argued he fulfilled any Louisiana duty before establishing residency in the state and therefore had no obligation to register in Louisiana.
- Stipulated facts: 1994 Texas conviction for sexual assault of a child; released 1995; Texas did not require registration at that time, but Louisiana required 10-year registration after release.
- Louisiana later extended the period to 25 years by 2007 La.Act 460, effective 2008; defendant had never resided in Louisiana prior to 2009.
- Trial court and a split court of appeal held the duty expired in 2005, before the 2007 amendment took effect; dissent criticized considering merits at motion to quash.
- The court reverses and remands, holding the retroactive application and interpretation of the statute, with lingering questions about registration timing and remedies under the remedial nature of the law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant’s duty to register had lapsed by December 2005 under prior law | State argues duty began in Louisiana upon residence; 10-year period expired by 2005 | Clark had no continuing duty after 2005 under prior law | No; the court analyzes whether the duty could have lapsed under prior law and retroactive changes. |
| Whether 2007 Act 460's 25-year registration applies retroactively to revive a duty in 2009 | Act 460 applies to all who failed to comply under prior law regardless of date | Exemption for those whose obligations were extinguished by operation of law; retroactivity limited | Court reverses; remand to resolve applicability and retroactivity issues. |
| What constitutes ‘initial registration’ for purposes of the 10-year period | Initial registration is the date of first registration in Louisiana or Texas release date | Initial registration should be the date of first registration in Louisiana | Court adopts interpretation aligning with remedial purpose and residence-based obligations. |
| Does the retroactive extension violate ex post facto protections | Remedial nature permits retroactive application | Potential punitive effect; applies only to those who complied earlier | Court treats as remedial; upholds retroactive potential under the statute. |
| Do the amendments affect the prosecution viability given residence timing in 2009 | Prosecution valid under extended period upon residence in Louisiana | Time-based protection and extinguished obligation negate prosecution | Remanded for further proceedings consistent with statutory interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perez, 464 So.2d 737 (La.1985) (motion to quash and scope of defense in criminal charges)
- State v. Legendre, 362 So.2d 570 (La.1978) (pre-trial motion to quash appropriate when facts cannot satisfy element)
- Smith v. State, 84 So.3d 487 (La.2012) (remedial registration statutes may apply retroactively)
- State ex rel. Olivieri v. State, 779 So.2d 735 (La.2001) (retroactive application of remedial measures”},{ )