WV- Offender Law Examined

This is a very interesting case. Lawyers need to present issues such as this to protect RSOs from these subtle problems with these laws.

6-11-2008 West Virginia:

New law amendments enacted in 2006 regarding registration with the State Police for sexual offenders are causing close scrutiny of a New Martinsville man’s case.

In the Wetzel County Circuit Court trial on May 12, Judge John Madden presiding, Roger L. Shuman, 54, of 296 North State Route 2, Lot 95W, New Martinsville, was found guilty of failing to register as a sexual offender. Allowed to remain free on bond, Shuman returned on June 6 for post-trial motions.

Counsel for the defense John Anderson of the Public Defender Corp. moved for an acquittal, saying Shuman was found guilty of conduct not embraced in the indictment. According to Anderson, up until 2006 it had been the responsibility of the State Police to verify a correct address for sexual offenders who were court ordered to register for life, as in Shuman’s case, who was convicted of incest with a minor.

In 2006 the statute was amended and it became the responsibility of the offenders to keep the police informed as to their whereabouts. The problem in Wetzel court arose because there is a specific penalty stated for “knowingly failing to register” in West Virginia Code 15-12-08c. On a first offense that person “shall be fined not less than $250 dollars nor more than $10,000 dollars or confined in jail not more than one year, or both.” The amended statute 15-12-10 which deals with offenders being required to update their information even if there has been no change, as Anderson contended was Shuman’s situation, does not specifically state what penalty shall be imposed for failure to maintain address verification.

Therefore, Anderson argued, “Any defect in form of behavior (referring to Shuman’s alleged failed attempts to update registration), falls under the rubric of knowingly failing to register. . .It is very clear something has gone awry in the prosecution. . .He was convicted of conduct which was not a crime.”

Prosecutor Tim Haught argued that registration for sex offenders is on-going, and it is now the responsibility of the offender to maintain updated information. He also said, “It is clear there are a number of obligations,” and the penalty for failure to comply with those obligations is outlined in 15-12-08c. Haught said the amendment refers to the entire statute. Shuman’s violation is in 15-12-10, but the penalty is mentioned in the preceding law.

Further, Haught said, “The defendant already waived his right to challenge the indictment by going to trial. . .The state’s position is that the defendant elected to not oppose the indictment.” In essence, it was too late after Shuman had already gone to trial and had been found guilty to say there was something wrong with the wording of the indictment.

After verifying several points in the case, Judge Madden decided to examine the laws and amendments more closely. “I will take a look at it—it warrants my attention.” He also said he would at a later date issue an order on Anderson’s motion to acquit. Shuman’s bond is to continue until Madden issues an order on the matter; sentencing will not be scheduled until after the order is made. ..News Source.. by BRENDA DORSEY, Staff Writer