Lifetime Offender Registration for “Unrelated Offenses”
More and more frequently, I am contacted by registrants who are told by the State that they must register for life because they have two or more convictions that require registration, even though they involve the same victim and the same time period.
The State is relying upon Indiana Code section 11-8-8-19(e), which states: “A sex or violent offender who is convicted of at least two (2) unrelated offenses under section 5(a) of this chapter is required to register for life.”
I would guess that most child molesting cases, for example, involve acts against the same victim over a particular period of time. But those cases do not trigger a lifetime registration requirement. So why is the D.O.C. flagging certain cases and not others? All of the cases I have reviewed so far have one thing in common: the registrant has convictions in two different counties. The D.O.C., which oversees the registry, must be assuming that if a registrant has convictions in two or more counties, the offenses are unrelated.
Yet this often is not the case. Two appellate cases in Indiana clarify what are “unrelated offenses” under the statute.
In 2011, the Court of Appeals of Indiana decided Nichols v. State, 947 N.E.2d 1011 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), reh’g denied. In Nichols, the defendant was charged with several child molesting counts in two counties. There was a different victim in each county, and the offenses occurred over a year apart. Under a global plea agreement, the defendant defendant pleaded guilty to certain counts in both counties. The defendant was required to register for life under IC 11-8-8-19(e).
On appeal from the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to require the D.O.C. to change the defendant’s registration period to 10 years instead of life, the Court of Appeals defined “unrelated offenses” as offenses that are independent of one another. The Court of Appeals held that acts involving different victims during different time periods in different counties were “unrelated” for purposes of Indiana Code section 11-8-8-19(e). The defendant sought rehearing, which was denied. He did not seek transfer to the Supreme Court of Indiana.
In 2020, the Court of Appeals decided Vandenberg v. DOC, 153 N.E.3d 1122 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). In Vandenberg, the defendant created a video of his young daughter toweling off after a shower in their home in Marion County. Thereafter, the defendant took a copy of the video to his workplace in Boone County and downloaded the video on his work computer.
The defendant was convicted of offenses in both Marion and Boone counties related to this video. The State argued that the two offenses were “unrelated” under Indiana Code section 11-8-8-19(e) because the defendant had committed two acts at different times — creating the video in Marion County and transferring the video in Boone County.
The Court of Appeals distinguished the case from Nichols because this case involved only one victim, not two victims as in Nichols. The Court held that “unrelated” is defined as “not connected in any way”; involving “no connection or common link.” Consequently, the defendant’s offenses were not “unrelated” because they involved the same video of the same victim, even though the acts were committed in different counties. The State did not seek transfer of the case to the Indiana Supreme Court.
If you are a registrant who has a lifetime registration requirement for two or more unrelated offenses that you believe are not unrelated, you should contact an attorney to discuss the matter further.