MT: Montana Supreme Court: ‘Retroactive’ punishment for sexual, violent offenders is unconstitutional

Source: dailymontanan.com 11/5/23

Randall Menges has technically been a free man since 2015 – that’s when he completed his sentence in Idaho.

That seven-year sentence in Idaho was for violating a ban on homosexual sex, even though court records show it was a consensual act between two minors.

Even though homosexual sex has since been decriminalized, Menges wanted to put the incident in the past since it happened 30 years ago. However, when he moved to Montana and restarted his life, the state continued to insist that he register as a sexual offender, even though he completed his sentence and even experts argue he presented little, if any, danger. For example, the court record at the time indicated that the sex was consensual, but the act was illegal.

Menges was granted some modicum of relief when federal court Judge Dana L. Christensen ruled that even though Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s office insisted that he be placed on the register, thereby making it nearly impossible to find employment or housing, the state had no rational basis for keeping Menges on the Sexual and Violent Offender Registry.

Menges is one of several cases that has raised the issue of whether requirements for sexual or violent offenders are legal, especially when those punishments are applied after a person has been sentenced, and in some case, has completed it.

In court and previously, the Montana Attorney General’s Office and the state’s Department of Justice insisted that offenders, some who, like Menges, had finished their sentences years ago, still be kept on the Sexual and Violent Offender Registry, the SVOR. Meanwhile attorneys for those previously convicted argued that the state has transformed a court sentence into a life sentence.

Recently, Montana’s highest court, the Montana Supreme Court has taken up the issue, centering on whether the Legislature and the departments of justice and corrections can mandate that offenders stay on the registry even though it may not have been part of their original court-ordered sentence. In other words, offenders said that the State of Montana had been allowed to change their sentence without due process.

The Montana Department of Justice was contacted for this story, but it did not respond to requests.

In a 5-to-2 decision, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that how the state was applying the rules of the sexual and violent offenders registry retroactively was not lawful, and rolled back parts of the law that govern how the public is notified of the offenders.

The case that went to the Montana Supreme Court focused on Richard Hinman, a Butte man who had been convicted of sexual assault in 1994 and had served his sentence. At the time he was sentenced, he would have been required to maintain registration for 10 years, with annual verification through mail.

However, in the years following his sentencing, the Montana Legislature revised the laws governing the registry several times, including making more onerous requirements apply retroactively to all previously convicted registrants. When Hinman was charged in 2019 for failure to register, he argued that those should be dismissed because they amounted to an unconstitutional ex post facto, or after-the-fact, punishment for an earlier crime.

Appellate attorney Kristina Neal of the Montana Public Defenders Office handled the appeal for Hinman and described the difficulty her client faced.

“He couldn’t establish a new beginning,” Neal said. “It was changing the rules after the fact, and those changes in the rules were so great that it created a new punishment. It was essentially a life sentence.”

The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the Sexual and Violent Registry is a punishment – even as attorneys for Montana argued it was not punitive, merely just a public list. However, the high court said the registry was more than a list, it was a punishment with heavy social consequences, and the Legislature could not change the law and make it apply to “defendants whose convictions predate them.”

The court’s opinion did not change the legality of the new requirements enacted by the Legislature, nor does it prohibit them from being placed on offenders who are convicted moving forward. Rather, the court’s decision pertains to those who were sentenced under a different set of rules, laws or circumstances.

“Under our constitution, citizens have the right to be free from retroactive punishment,” the decision said. “If the people, through their legislature, wish to create harsh and long-lasting consequences for certain crimes, they may do so, but it is unconstitutional to reach back years or decades and alter the punishments from previous convictions or retroactively punish conduct that was once lawful.”

Neal praised the high court for its decision, saying it clarified what was essentially sending mixed messages: That you can serve a sentence, but never finish serving time. The decision during the oral arguments of the court was lively, held during the time of COVID-19, Neal said.

Read the full article

Archive found in the WayBack Machine

 

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I keep seeing this story popping up. I hope that this decision is used as precedent to persuade other courts that enough is enough!!!!

Finally , a court acknowledges that the registry is a punishment, not a sam’s club membership

This Must End the Politicians over reach of Powers. Enough is Enough !

Retroactive Punitive Punishment is not Constitutional. They have lied and gotten away with it for decades. It has destroyed hundred of thousands forced on these hit lists. Not to mention Millions of family members who have had to suffer because of Power hungry Politicians, Governors, and Attorney Generals that have abused their Powers of the People. All while abusing the powers of congress, while defying the rulings of the Highest of Courts. This must end they must be held accountable. Free the People !

I still don’t understand how a “non-punitive” thing is punishment when applied retroactively but not punishment when going forward. It’s either punitive or its not. And if it’s punitive, then it needs to end when all sentencing obligations have ended.

Last edited 7 months ago by SR

Next step declare the registry unconstitutional and restore registrants lives allowing true re-entry into society, instead of the status quo of your free but you have to check in like your being babysat.

I am arguing this same topic in the Wyoming Legislation right now. They places a 3rd degree low level offense into their Severe Tier, never allowing them to ask to get off the registry. Ever! Yet, the compatible first degree offense when given for a younger victim can ask to be released after 25 years. Or if that same offenders victim was their child, they would be able to get off after 25 years. There are many more that are worse.

This decision and S.C. Decision recently in (Powell vs Keel) 2021 have helped greatly in arguments. The bill to lower said statute to a more appropriate level will be heard by Wy Senate and House of Reps in February.

Not only is it unconstitutional to require these low level offender to register for Life; Unless Wyoming changes this law law will continue to Reward Offenders there to choose younger victims.

You can watch the work being done on the bill on Wyomings Legislative YouTube page.
joint Judicial Committee meetings Sept 19th & November 6th.

It is a punishment. Mental and physical punishment. I struggle to get and keep a job . And I can’t find a place to live and keep it. My conviction is from 1995 . The only evidence presented was the accuser testimony. The Montana ruling is a sliver of hope. But does nothing in any other state . I’m tired of talking. It’s been clear for decades that this was nothing more than a political power grab .