Justice Richard T. Andrias

 

Read Full-Text Decision

In 1989 defendant killed his 13-year-old half sister. In 1990 he was convicted in Virginia of first-degree murder and using a firearm in a felony. Paroled in 2015, he had to register under Virginia’s Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry Act because his half-sister was younger than 15 when he murdered her. After moving to the Bronx, defendant was required to register, under Correction Law §168-a(2)(d)(ii), as a sex offender in New York based on his Virginia murder conviction even though the crime did not involve any sexual motivation or conduct. First Department found §168-a(2)(d)(ii), as applied, violated defendant’s constitutional due process rights, and that his New York sex offender adjudication should be annulled. By including murder where the victim is younger than 15 as a crime requiring registration, despite the lack of a sexual component, Virginia exceeded the range of offenses set forth in the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. Thus, the connection between defendant’s crime and the legislative purpose behind New York’s Sex Offender Registration Act was too attenuated to support a finding of legitimate government interest in applying §168-a(2)(d)(ii) to defendant.

Justice Richard T. Andrias

 

Read Full-Text Decision

In 1989 defendant killed his 13-year-old half sister. In 1990 he was convicted in Virginia of first-degree murder and using a firearm in a felony. Paroled in 2015, he had to register under Virginia ‘s Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry Act because his half-sister was younger than 15 when he murdered her. After moving to the Bronx, defendant was required to register, under Correction Law §168-a(2)(d)(ii), as a sex offender in New York based on his Virginia murder conviction even though the crime did not involve any sexual motivation or conduct. First Department found §168-a(2)(d)(ii), as applied, violated defendant’s constitutional due process rights, and that his New York sex offender adjudication should be annulled. By including murder where the victim is younger than 15 as a crime requiring registration, despite the lack of a sexual component, Virginia exceeded the range of offenses set forth in the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act. Thus, the connection between defendant’s crime and the legislative purpose behind New York ‘s Sex Offender Registration Act was too attenuated to support a finding of legitimate government interest in applying §168-a(2)(d)(ii) to defendant.