State v. Stoll, 480 P.3d 158

Background

In 2008 Stoll was convicted of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine; at sentencing the court (erroneously) ordered her to register under KORA before that offense was listed as a registrable drug offense (it was added in 2011).
Stoll nevertheless complied with registration for ~7 years, reporting quarterly to the sheriff and the same contact/work information.
She moved in October 2015 to Nickerson and did not update her registration within KORA’s three-business-day requirement; she updated later and was charged with failure to register.
At a bench trial Stoll stipulated she knew of the duty to register and had reported the Hutchinson address earlier; she argued KORA’s strict-liability provision violated due process and that she had substantially complied.
The district court found the strict-liability offense constitutional, rejected the substantial-compliance defense, convicted Stoll, and imposed a downward departure sentence; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Kansas Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Stoll's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Availability of substantial-compliance defense under KORA	KORA is remedial; remedial statutes permit substantial (spirit-over-letter) compliance	Registration duties must be strictly enforced to protect public safety; relaxing requirements undermines KORA’s purpose	Substantial compliance is not an available defense to KORA failure-to-register charges
Denial of substantial-compliance defense violates due process / imbalance because agencies aren’t penalized for failing to notify	It’s unfair/due-process violating to require strict compliance by registrants while KORA imposes no penalties on agencies that fail to notify	No showing agencies failed to notify Stoll; no demonstrated prejudice	Court of Appeals properly declined to reach a facial due-process claim because Stoll didn’t show any agency noncompliance or personal injury
Standing to challenge K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5203(f) as strict liability	Strict-liability element affects her due-process rights and thus she has standing	She stipulated she knew the duty to register, so strict-liability question had no effect on her case	Stoll lacked standing to challenge the statute because she didn’t show lack of mens rea or impact on her case
Invited error / sufficiency: did stipulation bar challenge that her conviction did not trigger registration?	Invited-error cannot override a defendant’s right to have every element proven; she can challenge whether her prior conviction made her a registrant	She stipulated she was convicted of an offense requiring registration; invited error doctrine should bar the challenge	Invited-error was misapplied (one cannot stipulate to a legal conclusion), but on the merits the State proved she met KORA’s offender definition and evidence was sufficient; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita, 303 Kan. 650, 367 P.3d 282 (2016) (articulates substantial-compliance standard)
A & S Rental Solutions, Inc. v. Kopet, 31 Kan. App. 2d 979, 76 P.3d 1057 (2003) (substantial compliance may satisfy statute where spirit and purpose are met)
State v. Fredrick, 292 Kan. 169, 251 P.3d 48 (2011) (characterizes KORA’s legislative purpose as public protection)
State v. Meredith, 306 Kan. 906, 399 P.3d 859 (2017) (describing KORA as remedial)
Smith v. Marshall, 225 Kan. 70, 587 P.2d 320 (1978) (remedial statutes are construed liberally to effect purpose)
State v. Toothman, 310 Kan. 542, 448 P.3d 1039 (2019) (a party cannot stipulate to an erroneous legal conclusion)
State v. Weber, 297 Kan. 805, 304 P.3d 1262 (2013) (distinguishes stipulation of fact from stipulation to legal effect)
State v. Gilkes, 307 Kan. 725, 415 P.3d 427 (2018) (whether defendant meets KORA’s definition is a question of law)
State v. Shaylor, 306 Kan. 1049, 400 P.3d 177 (2017) (rejects Ex Post Facto challenge to retroactive application of KORA registration)
State v. Smith, 309 Kan. 977, 441 P.3d 1041 (2019) (affirming lower court result for different/reasoned ground)