United States v. Juvenile Male
255 P.3d 110
Mont.2011Background
- Certified question from US Supreme Court about Montana law governing sex-offender registration for juvenile offenders.
- SVORA retroactivity amended in 2007 to include youth adjudications; retroactivity provision stated for those sentenced or under supervision after July 1, 1989.
- Respondent was federally adjudicated delinquent in 2005 for sexual acts with a child under 12; term expired May 2008.
- Respondent subjected to SORNA-registration conditions via federal supervision; district court later vacated under ex post facto grounds; respondent no longer subject to federal conditions.
- Montana district court and court of appeals addressed whether SVORA imposes an independent Montana-law registration duty regardless of federal conditions; majority says yes; dissent contends retroactivity flaw prevents independent duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Respondent’s Montana registration duty contingent on federal order validity? | Respondent. | Respondent argues retroactive SVORA amendments apply only if a juvenile is subject to the federal order; otherwise no Montana duty. | No; Montana duty is independent of federal conditions. |
| Do 2007 SVORA amendments retroactively apply to adjudicated youths? | Respondent. | The Legislature intended retroactivity to include adjudicated youth via 2007 amendments. | Yes; 2007 amendments retroactively apply to adjudicated youths under express retroactivity provision. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Villanueva, 328 Mont. 135 (2005 MT 192) (retroactivity and SVORA scope for out-of-state offenses)
- Hamilton, 338 Mont. 142 (2007 MT 167) (retroactivity of SVORA amendments; purpose and efficiency)
- Mount, 317 Mont. 481 (2003 MT 275) (intents-effects test for retroactivity; regulatory v. punitive)
- Hastings, 340 Mont. 1 (2007 MT 294) (whether youth adjudication constitutes a conviction for SVORA)
- Neel v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 207 Mont. 376 (1984) (requirement that retroactivity be expressly declared)
- Goebel, 200 Mont. 106 (2001 MT 73) (adhere to express declaration rule in retroactivity)
- Davidson v. Love, 127 Mont. 366 (1953) (retroactivity principles governing statutory interpretation)