259 P.3d 289
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Taylor pled guilty in 1988 to statutory rape in the third degree under former RCW 9A.44.090 (repealed 1988).
- The information alleged the offense occurred in 1982 when the victim was under 16 and the offender was over 18.
- In 2009 Taylor was charged with failure to register as a sex offender under former RCW 9A.44.130(1)(a).
- At a 2010 bench trial, Taylor was found guilty and sentenced to 43 months in prison.
- The key issue was whether Taylor’s repealed statutory rape conviction constitutes a “sex offense” for registration purposes under the SRA and CPA provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Taylor’s 1988 statutory rape conviction a sex offense under the registration statute? | Taylor’s conviction is under a repealed statute and not a current sex offense. | State contends the SRA definition covers preexisting offenses via the savings clause. | No; the plain language does not define it as a sex offense. |
| Does the SRA definition of sex offense apply to repealed or pre-1990 offenses? | The pre-1990 statute is not within the current definition or restoration by retroactivity. | SRA’s scope may include pre-1976 convictions; gaps should be filled by the legislature. | The SRA definition does not sweep in Taylor’s repealed offense; gap not bridged by law. |
| Does the savings clause require applying the registration duty to Taylor? | Savings clause could retroactively require registration for offenses in effect then. | Savings clause applies to penalties, not to registration requirements here. | Savings clause does not authorize imposing the registration duty on Taylor. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Alvarado, 164 P.3d 345 (2008) (statutory interpretation framework; plain meaning governs)
- State v. Fenter, 569 P.2d 67 (1977) (savings clause limitations in retroactivity)
- State v. Ward, 869 P.2d 1062 (1994) (registration as collateral consequence; not punishment)
- State v. S.M.H., 887 P.2d 903 (1995) (gap-filling limitations; can't read into statute)
- In re Det. of Williams, 55 P.3d 597 (2002) (expressio unius and statutory exclusions not automatic)