State v. Hudson
2013 Ohio 647
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Hudson was convicted in 1996 of gross sexual imposition, receiving a 6-month term consecutive to a 12-month term for another offense.
- Megan’s Law registration, under the 1997 version of Ohio’s registration statute, applied to him while he remained incarcerated.
- In 1997 the trial court found he was not a sexual predator, and no later hearing determined his duty to register beyond that ruling.
- Hudson continued to be notified and signed notices of duties to register through the 2000s, but no new register-conditions were imposed.
- HB 565 amended the registration scheme; R.C. 2950.07(D) tolls the ten-year registration period during confinement, effective March 31, 1999.
- In 2011 Hudson was released, registered at a sister’s address, but a sweep revealed he had not lived there for over a month; he failed to notify change of address or verify registration, was arrested in December 2011, and later pled no contest to one count of failure to provide notice of change of address.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2950.07(D) tolling is retroactive under the Ohio Constitution | Hudson argues tolling is ex post facto and not expressly retroactive. | Hudson contends lack of explicit retroactivity language requires prospective application. | R.C. 2950.07(D) is retroactive and remedial; applied to Hudson. |
| Whether tolling violates due process or deprives Hudson of notice/challenge to continuing duty | Hudson asserts lack of notice and opportunity to challenge extended duty. | Hudson had notice historically and the continuation attaches as a matter of law. | No due process violation; notices and legal framework supported continued duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Consilio, 114 Ohio St.3d 295 (2007-Ohio-4163) (establishes two-step retroactivity analysis (express retroactivity first, then remedial vs substantive))
- State v. Ferguson, 120 Ohio St.3d 7 (2008-Ohio-4824) (retroactivity of SB 5 amendments to Megan’s Law; distinguishes remedial vs substantive)
- Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998-Ohio-) (held Megan’s Law registration provisions retroactive and remedial)
- State v. Hancock, 2012-Ohio-1435 (2d Dist. No. 24653) (tolling of ten-year registration deemed remedial)
- State v. LaSalle, 96 Ohio St.3d 178 (2002-Ohio-4009) (establishes prospective default presumption absent express retroactivity language)