State v. Williams
2011 Ohio 3374
Ohio2011Background
- Williams was indicted in 2007 for unlawful sexual contact with a minor and pleaded guilty; the trial court stated his conviction would not trigger reporting requirements.
- SB 10, enacted in 2007, revised sex-offender classification/registration dramatically, expanding duties and duration.
- At sentencing Williams was classified as Tier II under SB 10, with in-person registration and multi-county notification obligations for 25 years.
- Williams argued SB 10 could not be applied to offenses committed before July 1, 2007; the court of appeals denied relief.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio granted discretionary review to determine whether SB 10 retroactively applies to pre-enactment offenses.
- The Court held SB 10, as applied to Williams and similarly situated offenders, violates the Ohio Retroactivity Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SB 10 retroactively apply to pre-enactment offenses? | Williams contends retroactive application violates Ohio Const. Art. II, Sec. 28. | SB 10 serves public-safety remedial purposes and applies to past conduct as a regulatory scheme. | SB 10 retroactively applied violates the Retroactivity Clause. |
| Is SB 10 punitive or remedial as applied to pre-enactment offenses? | SB 10 imposes new burdens for past conduct, creating punishment. | SB 10 is civil/remedial, not punishment, under precedent. | Court finds SB 10 punitive as applied to pre-enactment offenses. |
| Should the classification/registration provisions be treated as punishment or regulation for retroactivity analysis? | Classification/registration is punitive and retroactivity should be barred. | Regulatory regime is civil/remedial and permissible retroactively. | Court treats SB 10 as retroactive punitive imposing new burdens; unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cook v. Ohio, 83 Ohio St.3d 404 (1998) (retroactivity of Megan's Law upheld; remedial purpose)
- Wilson v. State, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (2007) (civil nature of sex-offender classification; civil standard of review)
- Ferguson v. State, 120 Ohio St.3d 7 (2008) (SB5 amendments not punitive; retroactivity upheld for remedial scheme)
- State v. Williams, 88 Ohio St.3d 513 (2000) (Megan’s Law not punishment; retroactivity analysis)
- State v. Bodyke, 126 Ohio St.3d 266 (2010) (reforms of sex-offender regime; remedial/punitive considerations)
- Pratte v. Stewart, 125 Ohio St.3d 473 (2010) (substantive vs remedial retroactivity framework)
- State v. Hayden, 96 Ohio St.3d 211 (2002) (due process and registration requirements; de minimis)