United States v. John Hill
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7758
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- John Hill pleaded guilty in South Carolina to indecent exposure; state court required him to register on sex-offender and child-abuse registries.
- Hill later moved to Arkansas and did not update his registration for several months.
- Federal indictment charged Hill under SORNA, 18 U.S.C. § 2250, for failing to register/update as a sex offender.
- Hill moved to dismiss, arguing SORNA is unconstitutional (non-delegation and Commerce Clause) and that his prior indecent-exposure conviction was not a "sex offense" triggering SORNA.
- District court denied the motion; Hill pleaded guilty while reserving the right to appeal the denial.
- The Eighth Circuit considered whether a conviction for indecent exposure involving an 11-year-old constituted "conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor" under 42 U.S.C. § 16911(7)(I).
Issues
| Issue | Hill's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SORNA is unconstitutional under non-delegation/Commerce Clause | SORNA exceeds Congress's authority and unlawfully delegates power | Circuit precedent upholds SORNA's constitutionality | Rejected Hill's challenge; precedent controls (Manning) |
| Method for determining if prior conviction is a "sex offense" under §16911(7)(I) | Use categorical/statute-only approach; look only to elements of the conviction | Use circumstance-specific approach; examine reliable evidence of the factual conduct | Court adopted circumstance-specific approach |
| Whether Chevron deference applies to Attorney General's SMART Guidelines recommending categorical approach | Argues for deference to the AG interpretation | Argues statute is unambiguous; no Chevron deference | Court declined Chevron deference; statute unambiguous |
| Whether Hill's indecent-exposure conviction was a "specified offense against a minor" under SORNA | Conviction could rest on the least culpable statutory conduct and thus not be a sex offense against a minor | Evidence (arrest affidavit, registry entries, state requirement to register for child-involved acts) shows Hill masturbated before an 11-year-old and was placed on child-abuse registry | Court held the conviction involved sexual conduct against a minor and affirmed denial of motion to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 975 (2012) (SORNA enacted to protect public and unify offender registries)
- United States v. Manning, 786 F.3d 684 (8th Cir. 2015) (circuit precedent rejecting similar constitutional challenges to SORNA)
- Ortiz v. Lynch, 796 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2015) (discussing categorical approach limits)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (supporting circumstance-specific inquiry for certain prior-conviction analyses)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (evaluating analysis of particular conduct in immigration context)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limiting documents usable in certain conviction-identity inquiries)
- United States v. Price, 777 F.3d 700 (4th Cir. 2015) (endorsing circumstance-specific approach under SORNA and rejecting Chevron deference)
- United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (adopting circumstance-specific approach under SORNA)
- United States v. Mi Kyung Byun, 539 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2008) (applying circumstance-specific analysis to SORNA coverage)