205 A.3d 36
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2019Background
- In Oct. 2015 Jimmie Rogers pleaded guilty in Anne Arundel County to one count of human trafficking under CR § 11-303(a) after an indictment charging trafficking a minor was amended. Remaining counts were nolle prossed.
- At plea hearing State recited facts: police found victim (M.H.) in motel, she said Rogers posted her ad, arranged dates, and kept proceeds; earlier indictment and charging documents had alleged she was a minor.
- Rogers was sentenced (largely suspended) and, because conviction was under CR § 11-303 and registration statutes classify offenders as Tier II when the victim was a minor, he registered with the Maryland Sex Offender Registry (MSOR).
- Rogers sued for declaratory judgment asking removal from the MSOR, arguing the State had not proven the victim was a minor and his conviction under §11-303(a) (not §11-303(b)) did not mandate registration.
- At summary judgment the State produced records (indictment, officer’s statement, registry affidavit) suggesting the victim’s minority; Rogers offered no affirmative evidence. The circuit court granted Rogers summary judgment and ordered removal.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the State must prove the victim’s minority by a preponderance (not beyond a reasonable doubt), and remanded for further proceedings because the record did not resolve the factual dispute required for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rogers) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rogers must register as a Tier II sex offender given conviction under CR §11-303(a) | The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor; because Rogers pleaded to §11-303(a) (age not an element) registration cannot be imposed absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt | A conviction under §11-303 (either subpart) triggers registration if the victim was a minor; registration is regulatory so a preponderance standard suffices and State provided records showing minority | Registration requirement is regulatory; victim’s age need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The State must prove minority by a preponderance. Summary judgment for Rogers reversed and remanded for factfinding |
| Whether summary judgment for Rogers was appropriate given the record | Rogers argued there was no proof the victim was a minor and moved for summary judgment | State argued there was no genuine dispute and submitted records indicating the victim was alleged to be a minor | Court held neither side carried its summary judgment burden: Rogers offered no affirmative evidence, State failed to prove minority by preponderance. Grant of summary judgment to Rogers was erroneous; remand for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (Due Process requires proof beyond reasonable doubt for facts that constitute a criminal offense)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be proved beyond reasonable doubt)
- Young v. State, 370 Md. 686 (MSOR is regulatory and not punishment)
- Cain v. State, 386 Md. 320 (Registration inappropriate when conviction is not for an enumerated or inherently sexual offense)
- In re Nick H., 224 Md. App. 668 (Registration is collateral consequence; distinguishing burdens and procedures)
- Sweet v. State, 163 Md. App. 676 (Preponderance standard appropriate when defendant challenges sexually violent predator classification)
- Myers v. Kayhoe, 391 Md. 188 (Summary judgment review standard; view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Hines v. French, 157 Md. App. 536 (Purpose of summary judgment is to identify genuine disputes of material fact)