723 S.E.2d 589
S.C.2012Background
- Petitioner Latimore pled guilty in 2004 to a lewd act on a child and later registered as a sex offender in 2005.
- amendments in 2006 changed re-registration to biannual dates (birth month and six months later) and extended deadlines.
- Latimore did not re-register by Sept. 4, 2006 nor in December 2006 as amended.
- State charged Latimore with failing to re-register under the amended statute; trial relied on 2005 registration forms and registry office testimony.
- Latimore moved for a directed verdict arguing lack of actual notice of the change; motions denied.
- Court of Appeals affirmed circuit court’s denial; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider due process notice under Lambert v. California and the 2006 amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court of appeals erred denying the directed verdict. | Latimore: due process requires actual notice of the 2006 change. | State: proper notice not required beyond actual notice of pre-2006 duties; jury issue on notice. | No reversible error; affirmed as modified; due process requires actual notice of the 2006 change to convict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (U.S. 1957) (due process requires actual notice of registration duty)
- State v. Dickey, 394 S.C. 491 (S.C. 2011) (directed verdict standard)