State of Louisiana in the Interest of D.D.

FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #031

FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

The Opinions handed down on the 27th day of June, 2025 are as follows:

BY Crain, J.:

2024-CK-00254 STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF D.D. (Parish of St.

Tammany)

AFFIRMED. SEE OPINION.

Weimer, C.J., additionally concurs and assigns reasons.

Hughes, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

Griffin, J., dissents.

Guidry, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2024-CK-00254

STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF D.D.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany

CRAIN, J.

In this juvenile proceeding, we find Louisiana’s sex offender registration law,

when applied to a juvenile, does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition

against cruel and unusual punishment or implicate the Sixth Amendment’s right to

a jury trial.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

D.D. was adjudicated delinquent for committing second degree rape in

violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14:42.1A(1). He was fourteen years old at the

time of the delinquent act and sixteen when adjudicated. The juvenile court

committed D.D. to the custody of the Office of Juvenile Justice until his twenty-first

birthday. As required by law, D.D. was also informed he must register as a sex

offender upon his release from confinement. See La. Child. Code art. 884.1A(2);

La. R.S. 15:542A(3)(b) and C(2). In a pre-adjudication motion, D.D. challenged the

constitutionality of the registration requirement, arguing application of the law to a

juvenile is unconstitutional under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments of the U.S.

Constitution. The juvenile court denied the motion.

D.D. appealed, asserting assignments of error concerning the adjudication and

the denial of his motion contesting the constitutionality of the sex offender

registration requirement. The court of appeal affirmed the adjudication and denial

of the constitutional claims. See State in Interest of D.D., 23-0754 (La. App. 1 Cir.

1/26/24), 383 So. 3d 1000. This court granted D.D.’s writ application. See State in

Interest of D.D., 24-0254 (La. 11/27/24), 396 So. 3d 440.

D.D. argues his adjudication is not supported by sufficient evidence to prove

the delinquent act. He further maintains the juvenile court erred by limiting questions

of a witness and not considering another witness’s failure to preserve cell phone

data. Lastly, D.D. seeks review of the denial of his constitutional claims. This final

assignment of error prompted our writ grant; however, we recognize courts should

avoid constitutional rulings when the case can be disposed of on nonconstitutional

grounds. Cat’s Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans Through Department of Fin., 98-

0601 (La. 10/20/98), 720 So. 2d 1186, 1199. Mindful of this principle, we have

reviewed D.D.’s assignments of error concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and

the specified evidentiary rulings, which were thoroughly addressed by the court of

appeal, and find no merit to those assignments. See State in Interest of D.D., 383 So.

3d at 1006-09. Our discussion thus begins with D.D.’s constitutional claims.

DISCUSSION

All government originates with the people and is founded on their will alone.

See La. Const. art. I. Unlike the federal constitution, the provisions of our state

constitution are not grants of power but instead are limitations on the otherwise

plenary power of the people exercised through the legislature. Hainkel v. Henry,

313 So. 2d 577, 579 (La. 1975). A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute

must therefore point to a particular provision of the state or federal constitution that

restricts the legislature’s power to enact the statute. See Welch v. United Medical

Healthwest-New Orleans L.L.C., 24-0899 (La. 3/21/25), 403 So. 3d 554, 561, reh'g

denied, 24-0899 (La. 5/8/25); Board of Directors of Louisiana Recovery Dist. v. All

Taxpayers, Prop. Owners, & Citizens of State of La., 529 So. 2d 384, 387 (La. 1988).

Unless fundamental rights or privileges and immunities are involved, a strong

presumption exists the legislature acted within its constitutional authority in

2

adopting legislation. Welch, 403 So. 3d at 561; Board of Directors of Louisiana

Recovery District, 529 So. 2d at 387. Statutes are generally presumed constitutional,

and the party challenging the validity of the statute bears the burden of proving it is

unconstitutional. State v. Spell, 21-0876 (La. 5/13/22), 339 So. 3d 1125, 1130-31;

State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La. 7/1/08), 985 So. 2d 709, 719. This presumption is

especially forceful with statutes enacted to promote a public purpose. Welch, 403

So. 3d at 561; Polk v. Edwards, 626 So. 2d 1128, 1132 (La.1993). Doubt as to

legislation’s constitutionality is resolved in favor of its constitutionality. Welch, 403

So.3d at 562; Polk, 626 So. 2d at 1132. The constitutionality of a statute presents a

question of law subject to de novo review. Welch, 403 So.3d at 561; Spell, 339 So.

3d at 1130.

D.D.’s constitutional challenge targets Louisiana’s sex offender registration

law (“Act”), specifically the statutory requirement that he register as a sex offender

because of his adjudication for second degree rape. See La. R.S. 15:542A(3)(b). The

Act mandates D.D. register with appropriate law enforcement agencies within three

days of his release from custody. See La. R.S. 15:542C(2). To register, D.D. must

provide his name, address, and information about his conviction to those agencies,

along with additional information such as his social security number, birthdate, a

current photograph, DNA sample, and physical characteristics such as sex, race, hair

color, weight, scars, and tattoos. See La. R.S. 15:542C(1)-(2). A central registry to

help disseminate this information to law enforcement agencies was created by the

Act. See La. R.S. 15:542.1.5A(1) and D. The registry is also accessible online by

the general public, but the website does not publish some of the offender’s more

personal information, like his social security number, telephone number, and email

addresses. See La. R.S. 15:542.1.5A(2).

The Act also contains extensive community-notification provisions that

require an offender publicize his conviction in a notice that must be provided to a

3

broad swath of people within a certain radius of his residence. See La. R.S.

15:542.1A(1)-(2). The notice must also be published twice in the official journal of

the parish where the offender resides and included in any online profiles. See La.

R.S. 15:542.1A(2)(a) and D(1). Other notices may be required, and all community

notifications must be repeated every five years. See La. R.S. 15:542.1A(2)(b) and

(3).1

Significantly for present purposes, juveniles such as D.D. are exempt from all

community-notification requirements, with one exception. Subsection 15:542.1C

provides:

Any juvenile required to register in accordance with the

provisions of this Chapter shall be exempt from any notification

requirements of this Section except for the notification required by the

provisions of Subsection B of this Section.

The noted exception applies if the offender provides recreational instruction to

persons under the age of seventeen, in which case he has to post the notice in the

building or facility where the instruction is given. See La. R.S. 15:542.1B. D.D.

has not challenged this community-notification provision. Accordingly, when

analyzing D.D.’s constitutional challenges, our review is confined to the Act’s

registration requirements. The community-notification provisions are either not

applicable or not at issue. See La. R.S. 15:542.1C.

D.D. contends the Act’s registration requirement, when applied to a juvenile,

violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual

punishments” and constitutes an adult criminal sentence imposed without the

constitutional safeguard of a jury trial. We address each of these claims separately.

1

Many of the Act’s requirements track federal legislation, which conditioned federal funds

on states adopting registration and community-notification provisions for sex offenders. See 34

U.S.C.A. § 20927(a).

4

Eighth Amendment Claim

The threshold question for D.D.’s Eighth Amendment claim is whether the

Act’s registration requirement is “punishment.” “The Cruel and Unusual

Punishments Clause focuses on . . . what method or kind of punishment a

government may impose after a criminal conviction.” City of Grants Pass, Oregon

v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520, 542; 144 S.Ct. 2202, 2216; 219 L.Ed.2d 941 (2024)

(internal quotation marks omitted). The Eighth Amendment “limits the kinds of

punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes.” Ingraham v. Wright,

430 U.S. 651, 667; 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1410; 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977). “The common

inquiry across the [Supreme] Court’s Eighth Amendment, ex post facto, and double

jeopardy jurisprudence is determining whether the government’s sanction is punitive

in nature and intended to serve as punishment.” Hinds v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 259, 265

(1st Cir. 2015).

In a consistent line of cases, this court has repeatedly held the Act’s

requirements are not punishment.2 The Act creates a civil regulatory scheme

intended to protect the public from sex offenders, who often pose a high risk of

recidivism, by facilitating the exchange of relevant information among law

2 See State v. Cook, 16-1518 (La. 5/3/17), 226 So. 3d 387, 392 (per curiam) (“The

registration and notification law is . . . a civil regulatory scheme that is intended to alert the public

and law enforcement for purposes of public safety; it is not part of a sex offender’s punishment.”);

State v. I.C.S., 13-1023 (La. 7/1/14), 145 So. 3d 350, 355-56 (“The registration requirement is not

intended to be punitive, but is instead intended to further the legitimate public purpose of protecting

the community.”); State v. Trosclair, 11-2302 (La. 5/8/12), 89 So. 3d 340, 356-57 (“[P]unitive

aspects [of amendment extending post-release supervision period for sex offenders] . . . are not

sufficient to constitute the clearest proof [necessary] to override legislative intent and transform

what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.”); Smith v. State, 10-1140 (La.

1/24/12), 84 So. 3d 487, 497-98 (“It is well-settled that Louisiana's sex offender registration

requirements are not punitive, but rather, they are remedial and may be applied retroactively

without violating the prohibition of the ex post facto clause.); State v. Golston, 10-2804 (La.

7/1/11), 67 So. 3d 452, 463 (Sex Offender Assessment Panel (SOAP) procedure for sex offenders

is “regulatory, rather than criminal.”); State v. Patin, 02-1126 (La. 4/9/03), 842 So. 2d 322, 325

(“Given the remedial purpose of Louisiana’s sex offender registration and notice law . . ., the law

in effect at the time of sentencing . . . may apply to respondent without violating the Ex Post Facto

Clauses of the federal and state constitutions.); State ex rel. Olivieri v. State, 00-0172 (La. 2/21/01),

779 So. 2d 735, 748 (“[T]he effect of the interrelated components of this legislation is not so

obtrusive that we would find it punitive rather than remedial or regulatory as was the intention of

the Legislature.”).

5

enforcement agencies and alerting the public. See La. R.S. 15:540; State v. Cook,

16-1518 (La. 5/3/17), 226 So. 3d 387, 392 (per curiam); State v. I.C.S., 13-1023

(La. 7/1/14), 145 So. 3d 350, 355-56; State ex rel. Olivieri v. State, 00-0172 (La.

2/21/01), 779 So. 2d 735, 747. This determination is based on a two-step process

that first looks at the legislative intent behind the Act and next considers the effects

of the law in application. See I.C.S., 145 So. 3d at 355-56; State v. Trosclair, 11-

2302 (La. 5/8/12), 89 So. 3d 340, 357; Olivieri, 779 So. 2d at 747; see also Smith v.

Doe, 538 U.S. 84; 123 S.Ct. 1140, 1147; 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003).

The legislative intent is apparent from the stated findings and purposes in the

Act, which begins by recognizing a paramount governmental interest in protecting

the public from sex offenders, who often post a high risk of recidivism. See La. R.S.

15:540A. The lack of available information about these offenders had historically

impaired law enforcement’s efforts to protect their communities, conduct

investigations, and quickly apprehend offenders. Id. These findings and purposes

reflect “an avowedly non-punitive intent” in enacting the law. Olivieri, 779 So. 2d

at 747. “[I]t is apparent the intent of the Legislature was to alert the public for the

purpose of public safety, a remedial intent, not to punish convicted sex offenders.”

Olivieri, 779 So. 2d at 747. “The explicit purpose of the provisions at issue,

therefore, is civil, rather than punitive, for the protection of the public.” Trosclair,

89 So. 3d at 350 (applying Act’s supervised probation provisions with similar

legislative findings).

The second step examines whether a statutory scheme is so punitive in effect

as to negate the legislature’s intention to deem it civil. See Trosclair, 89 So. 3d at

348; Olivieri, 779 So. 2d at 747; see also Smith, 538 U.S. at 92; 123 S.Ct. at 1147.

Only the clearest proof will suffice to override legislative intent and transform what

has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. Trosclair, 89 So. 3d

at 351; Smith, 538 U.S. at 92; 123 S.Ct. at 1147. Applying this standard, our

6

precedent has found the Act’s effects are “not so obtrusive that we would find it

punitive rather than remedial or regulatory as was the intention of the Legislature.”

Olivieri, 779 So. 2d at 749. The punitive aspects are thus not sufficient to constitute

the clearest proof necessary to override legislative intent and transform what has

been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty. Trosclair, 89 So. 3d at 357;

see also Smith, 538 U.S. at 92; 123 S.Ct. at 1147.

While much of our prior jurisprudence addressed ex post facto challenges to

the Act’s requirements, the analysis and holdings of those cases are instructive for

Eighth Amendment claims. In analyzing the effects of the Act, the courts looked to

federal jurisprudence and used a multifaceted inquiry, sometimes known as the

Mendoza-Martinez factors, to find the law was civil rather than punitive. See

Trosclair, 89 So. 3d at 351; Olivieri, 779 So. 2d at 745; see also Kennedy v.

Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168; 83 S.Ct. 554, 567; 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963). As

explained by the U.S. Supreme Court, this approach is partially rooted in Eighth

Amendment jurisprudence:

These factors, which migrated into our ex post facto law from double

jeopardy jurisprudence, have their earlier origins in cases under the

Sixth and Eighth Amendments, as well as the Bill of Attainder and the

Ex Post Facto Clauses . . . . [T]he Mendoza-Martinez factors are

designed to apply in various constitutional contexts.

Smith, 538 U.S. at 97; 123 S.Ct. at 1149. The holdings in the Olivieri-Trosclair line

of cases thus firmly support the conclusion the Act does not impose “punishment”

subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.

D.D. argues a different result is warranted when the Act’s registration

requirement is imposed on a juvenile. According to D.D., the registration

requirement is a lifelong sentence that follows him into adulthood and destroys the

confidential nature of his adjudication. D.D. argues these effects are wholly

inconsistent with the rehabilitation objective of the juvenile justice system and

amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

7

As previously stated, in considering whether the punitive effects of a law are

sufficient to override legislative intent deeming it civil, courts are aided by the

Mendoza-Martinez factors, a series of inquiries used to distinguish between civil

regulatory measures and criminal punishment. See Trosclair, 89 So. 3d at 357;

Smith, 538 U.S. at 97; 123 S.Ct. at 1149; Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. at 168; 83

S.Ct. at 567; Trosclair, 89 So. 3d at 351. The five factors relevant to the present

claim ask if the effects of the sex offender registration requirement (1) have

historically been regarded as punishment, (2) impose an affirmative disability or

restraint, (3) promote the traditional aims of punishment, (4) have a rational

connection to a nonpunitive purpose, and (5) are not excessive with respect to this

purpose. See Smith, 538 U.S. at 97; 123 S.Ct. at 1149. These are “useful guideposts”

that are neither exhaustive nor dispositive. Id. Because courts ordinarily defer to the

legislature’s stated intent, only the clearest proof will suffice to override legislative

intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal

penalty. Id.; see also Trosclair, 89 So. 3d at 351.

For the first factor, this court has recognized that compliance with the Act’s

requirements may humiliate an offender; however, Olivieri distinguished this

embarrassment from historical forms of punishment that intentionally used

humiliation for punitive purposes, explaining:

[C]hastisement . . . is not the primary purpose of [the Act’s]

notification; rather, notification is utilized to protect the public and

deter the reoccurrence of similar crimes . . . . [A]lthough Louisiana’s

[Act] has provisions which may be remotely similar to historical forms

of punishment, the immediate need for public protection [through

notification] is a corollary of rather than an addendum to the

punishment of sex offenders.

Olivieri, 779 So. 2d at 748. Interpreting a comparable registration requirement in an

Alaska law, the U.S. Supreme Court similarly recognized:

Our system does not treat dissemination of truthful information in

furtherance of a legitimate governmental objective as punishment. . . .

The purpose and the principal effect of notification are to inform the

8

public for its own safety, not to humiliate the offender. Widespread

public access is necessary for the efficacy of the scheme, and the

attendant humiliation is but a collateral consequence of a valid

regulation.

Smith, 538 U.S. at 98-99; 123 S.Ct. at 1150. Louisiana’s Act significantly reduces

the corollary effect of public embarrassment for juveniles by exempting them from

almost all community-notification requirements. See La. R.S. 15:542.1C.

D.D. maintains the public embarrassment is still more punitive for a juvenile

because registering as a sex offender will divulge otherwise confidential information

about his adjudication. This is incorrect. D.D. was adjudicated for a crime of

violence. See La. R.S. 14:2B(10). “All proceedings in a juvenile delinquency case

involving a crime of violence as defined in R.S. 14:2(B) . . . shall be open to the

public.” La. Child. Code art. 879B(1). The confidentiality of records and reports in

juvenile court proceedings “shall not apply to records relative to any matters

identified in Article 879(B)(1) [crimes of violence], in which those records and

reports shall be made available to the public.” La. Child. Code art. 412N. Juvenile

delinquency cases involving crimes of violence are thus open to the public. See In

re C.B., 97-2783 (La. 3/4/98), 708 So. 2d 391, 396. The only exceptions are the

offender’s medical records, mental health records, social records, and school

records, and any records related to the victim. Id. The registration requirement will

not result in the disclosure of any information about D.D.’s offense not currently

available to the public. See La. Child. Code arts. 412N and 879B(1).

For the second and third factors, we agree with Smith that the registration

requirement does not impose an affirmative disability or restraint, and the deterrence

effect is not sufficient to render the Act punitive. See Smith, 538 U.S. 99-100; 123

S.Ct. at 1151-52.

The fourth and fifth inquiries ask if the registration requirement has a rational

connection to a nonpunitive purpose and is not excessive with respect to that

9

purpose. A rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose is a “most significant”

factor in the analysis. Smith, 538 U.S. 102-03; 123 S.Ct. at 1152; Trosclair, 89 So.

3d at 354. The connection need only be rational; “[a] statute is not deemed punitive

simply because it lacks a close or perfect fit with the nonpunitive aims it seeks to

advance.” Trosclair, 89 So. 3d at 354 (quoting Smith, 538 U.S. at 103; 123 S.Ct. at

1152). While the excessiveness element also receives great weight, this factor “is

not an exercise in determining whether the legislature has made the best choice

possible to address the problem it seeks to remedy. The question is whether the

regulatory means chosen are reasonable in light of the nonpunitive objective.”

Smith, 538 U.S. at 105; 123 S.Ct. at 1154; see also Trosclair, 89 So. 3d at 354.

The Louisiana legislature recognized that a lack of available information

about sex offenders impaired law enforcement’s ability to protect their communities,

conduct investigations, and quickly apprehend offenders. See La. R.S. 15:540A.

The registration process provides an accessible source of this information that can

be readily exchanged between public agencies, providing needed assistance to law

enforcement’s efforts to protect their communities. Id. The protection of public

safety is a nonpunitive purpose, and the sex offender registration requirement is

rationally related to that purpose. See Smith, 538 U.S. at 103; 123 S.Ct. at 1152;

Olivieri, 779 So. 2d at 748.

D.D. also argues the registration requirement violates the Eighth Amendment

by impermissibly extending the juvenile court’s jurisdiction into the offender’s adult

life. When combined with the public disclosure of the adjudication, D.D. contends

this “life sentence” conflicts with the juvenile justice system’s goal of rehabilitating

youthful offenders. This argument fails to give due regard for the legislature’s role

in the juvenile justice system.

While the Louisiana Constitution recognizes juvenile courts, it expressly

provides the courts “shall have jurisdiction as provided by law.” See La. Const. art.

10

V, §18. Similarly, for persons who commit a crime under the age of seventeen, the

legislature is charged with providing “special juvenile procedures” for the offender’s

adjudication and detention. See La. Const. art. V, § 19. The legislature, by two-

thirds vote, can further require some juvenile offenders be tried as an adult for certain

offenses, can lower the maximum age of persons subject to juvenile procedures, and

even waive juvenile procedures in individual cases. Id. Within these parameters,

the jurisdiction, procedures, and objectives of the juvenile justice system are all

defined by the legislature. See La. Const. art. V, §§18-19; see also La. Child. Code

arts. 101-02, 302-13, 407, 412, 801-804, 879, 898.

In 1997, by a combined vote of 139-0, the legislature imposed the sex offender

registration requirement on juveniles who commit designated sex offenses. See 1997

La. Acts. 928; Bill History, 1997 Reg. Sess., SB1362. More recently, in 2010, the

legislature voted 127-0 to amend the Children’s Code to prescribe a form for

notifying the juvenile of this obligation. See La. Child. Code art. 884.1A(2); 2010

La. Acts 594. Any argument that mandatory registration violates the Eighth

Amendment because it conflicts with the purpose or jurisdiction of the juvenile

justice system must yield to the legal reality that the system’s purpose and

jurisdiction are defined by the legislature, the same entity that imposed the

registration requirement. See La. Const. art. V, §§18-19. That deliberative body,

not this court, is constitutionally charged with declaring the scope and purpose of

the juvenile justice system. Id.

We recognize juveniles are developmentally different from adults, and an

offender’s age and crime may affect an Eighth Amendment analysis. See Miller v.

Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 474; 132 S.Ct. 2455, 2466; 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012);

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48; 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2026; 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), as

modified (July 6, 2010). However, Miller and Graham wrestled with the Eight

Amendment implications created by mandatory sentences incarcerating juveniles for

11

life, an “especially harsh punishment” that the Court described as the “ultimate

penalty for juveniles . . . akin to the death penalty.” Miller, 567 U.S. at 474; 132

S.Ct. at 2466; Graham, 560 U.S. at 70; 130 S.Ct. at 2028.

In contrast, Louisiana’s sex offender registration law involves no

incarceration whatsoever. And its scheme or purpose, as discussed above, has

consistently been found not to involve punishment. It is a regulatory requirement

intended to facilitate the exchange of information to assist law enforcement in

protecting public safety and increase public awareness. See n.1. Nevertheless, the

legislature made significant accommodations for juveniles, exempting them from

most community notification requirements and providing an opportunity for a

reduction in the registration period for those subject to a lifetime registration

requirement. See La. R.S. 15:542.1C and 544E(2). Louisiana’s sex offender

registration law is not “akin to the death penalty” for juveniles and does not subject

them to a lifetime of incarceration. The concerns of Miller and Graham are not

applicable.

Whether applied to adults or juveniles, the registration requirement serves the

“avowedly nonpunitive” purpose of protecting public safety thorough timely

dissemination of information. See La. R.S. 15:540; Cook, 226 So. 3d at 392; I.C.S.,

145 So. 3d at 355-56; Olivieri, 779 So. 2d at 747. Any punitive aspects of the

registration requirement are incidental, and not sufficient to constitute “the clearest

proof necessary to override legislative intent and transform what has been

denominated a civil remedy into a criminal penalty.” See Trosclair, 89 So. 3d at 357;

Olivieri, 779 So. 2d at 749. D.D.’s constitutional challenge to Louisiana Revised

Statute 15:542 based on the Eighth Amendment has no merit.3

3

See also State v. Domingo-Cornelio, 26 Wash.App.2d 187, 198; 527 P.3d 1188, 1194

(2023), review denied, 534 P.3d 802 (Wash. 2023) (“The sex offender registration requirement for

juveniles is not punitive and, therefore, is not unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment.”);

State v. N.R., 314 Kan. 98, 112; 495 P.3d 16 (2021) (Kansas) (Lifetime registration requirements

are not punishment as applied to juvenile and do not violate Eighth Amendment.); In Interest of

Justin B., 419 S.C. 575, 586; 799 S.E.2d 675, 681 (2017) (South Carolina) (Requiring a juvenile

12

Sixth Amendment Claim

In his Sixth Amendment claim, D.D. contends the registration requirement

implicates his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

The Louisiana Children’s Code grants juveniles all constitutional rights

guaranteed to criminal defendants except the right to a jury trial. See La. Child.

Code arts. 808, 882; State ex rel. D.J., 01-2149 (La. 5/14/02), 817 So. 2d 26, 28.

Because of fundamental differences between the adult and juvenile systems, due

process does not require every constitutional right guaranteed to adults be

automatically granted to juveniles. See McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528,

543; 91 S.Ct. 1976, 1985; 29 L.Ed.2d 647; In re C.B., 708 So. 2d at 397. The

standard in juvenile proceedings is the fundamental fairness required by the Due

Process Clause. Id.

Applying that standard, the Supreme Court and this court have held

fundamental fairness does not require a trial by jury in juvenile proceedings. See

McKeiver, 403 U.S. at 545; 91 S.Ct. at 1986; In re State ex rel. A.J., 09-0477 (La.

12/1/09), 27 So. 3d 247, 263; State ex rel. D.J., 01-2149 (La. 5/14/02), 817 So. 2d

to register as a sex offender “is not a punitive measure and . . . bears a rational relationship to the

Legislature’s purpose . . . to protect our citizens . . . from repeat sex offenders.”); State v. Boche,

294 Neb. 912, 923; 885 N.W.2d 523, 532 (2016) (Nebraska) (“Because we conclude the lifetime

registration requirements imposed on [a juvenile] are not punishment, [the] argument that these

registration requirements amount to cruel and unusual punishment must necessarily fail.”); State

v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 512; 306 P.3d 369, 383 (2013) (Nevada) (Party

convicted as a juvenile and later required to register “failed to demonstrate, by the clearest proof,

that [amendment’s] effect negates the Legislature’s intent to create a civil regulatory scheme.”);

People ex rel. Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill.2d 185, 203; 909 N.E.2d 783, 797 (2009) (Illinois) (“This

court has repeatedly held, though, that the Act’s requirements do not constitute punishment.”); In

re D.L., 160 S.W.3d 155, 162 (Tex. App. 2005) (Registration requirement as applied to juvenile is

nonpunitive and cannot constitute cruel and unusual punishment.); United States v. Under Seal,

709 F.3d 257, 266 (4th Cir. 2013) (Federal act’s registration requirements, as applied to juvenile,

does not violate Eighth Amendment.); United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1010 (9th

Cir. 2012) (Registration under federal act may expose juveniles to potential shame and humiliation

but does not meet the high standard of cruel and unusual punishment.).

13

26, 32; State in Interest of Dino, 359 So.2d 586, 598 (La.1978), overruled on other

grounds by State v. Fernandez, 96-2719 (La. 4/14/98), 712 So. 2d 485. This

conclusion rests on the differences between the “non-criminal” nature of juvenile

proceedings and purely criminal proceedings for adults, including the great disparity

between juvenile dispositions and adult sentences, the juvenile court’s flexibility in

the adjudication and disposition, and the juvenile system’s focus on rehabilitation

and individual treatment rather than punishment. See McKeiver, 403 U.S. at 545-47;

91 S.Ct. at 1986-87; In re State ex rel. A.J., 27 So. 3d at 258, 260; State v. Brown,

03-2788 (La. 7/6/04), 879 So. 2d at 1288; In re C.B., 708 So. 2d at 396-97. As

explained by the Supreme Court:

The imposition of the jury trial on the juvenile court system would not

strengthen greatly, if at all, the fact-finding function, and would,

contrarily, provide an attrition of the juvenile court’s assumed ability to

function in a unique manner.

* * *

If the formalities of the criminal adjudicative process are to be

superimposed upon the juvenile court system, there is little need for its

separate existence. Perhaps that ultimate disillusionment will come one

day, but for the moment we are disinclined to give impetus to it.

McKeiver, 403 U.S. 547-551;91 S.Ct. at 1987-89.

Although this principle is well established, our jurisprudence has recognized

exceptions when particular legislation “blurred the distinction” between the juvenile

and adult systems to such a degree that fundamental fairness required a jury trial.

See Brown, 879 So. 2d at 1290 (finding unconstitutional a law that allowed a juvenile

disposition, rendered without a jury, to enhance a sentence under the habitual

offender law for an adult conviction); In re C.B., 708 So. 2d at 396 (striking down

law authorizing the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult facilities at age seventeen).

In those cases, the targeted law either extended or significantly changed the

14

conditions of the offender’s incarceration. Here, as previously explained, the sex

offender registration requirement involves no terms of incarceration.4

This court has reviewed other changes to the Children’s Code, including the

1994 amendment to Article 407 that opened crime-of-violence proceedings to the

public, and found the fundamental distinctions between the juvenile and adult

systems remain. See In re A.J., 27 So. 3d at 260-63 (“[C]hallenges, like the instant

one, claiming that fundamental changes in the nature of the juvenile justice system

have undermined the validity of the McKeiver Court’s analysis have been routinely

rejected.”); State ex rel. D.J., 817 So. 2d at 32-34 (“[T]rial by jury in a juvenile

proceeding is not constitutionally required under the applicable due process

standard.”). Despite legislative changes to the juvenile justice system, “there

remains a great disparity in the severity of penalties faced by a juvenile charged with

delinquency and an adult defendant charged with the same crime.” State ex rel. D.J.,

817 So. 2d at 33. This case demonstrates that disparity. As a juvenile, D.D.’s

maximum confinement from his adjudication is five years, which the juvenile court

can shorten or terminate at any time. See La. Child. Code arts. 898, 909. If tried

and convicted as an adult, D.D. would have faced a forty-year sentence at hard labor.

See La. R.S. 14:42.1B. And while not challenged here, the modification of the notice

requirements significantly mitigates the effects of registration for juveniles in

contrast to adults.

Louisiana’s sex offender registration requirement, when applied to a juvenile,

does not affect the fundamental distinctions between our juvenile and adult justice

systems. The law does not change the duration or conditions of the juvenile’s

confinement, nor does it restrict the juvenile court’s flexibility to modify the

4

We recognize the failure to register when required by law is a crime punishable by a fine

and imprisonment. See La. R.S. 15:542.1.4A. However, at issue here, is the effect of compliance

with the registration process, not noncompliance. The failure to comply with the Act is a separate

and distinct crime from the underlying sex offense that triggered the registration requirement. See

Olivieri, 779 So. 2d at 748.

15

confinement order. The Act is a regulatory measure that makes substantial

accommodations for juveniles. Fundamental fairness does not require a jury trial for

a juvenile offender subject to the sex offender registration requirement. See

McKeiver, 403 U.S. at 545; 91 S.Ct. at 1986; In re A.J., 27 So. 3d at 263; State ex

rel. D.J., 817 So. 2d at 32; Dino, 359 So. 2d at 598.5

CONCLUSION

Louisiana’s sex offender registration requirement, as applied to a juvenile,

does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual

punishment or implicate the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial. We affirm

D.D.’s adjudication and the denial of his motion to declare Louisiana Revised Statute

15:542 unconstitutional.

AFFIRMED.

5

See also State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Logan D.), 129 Nev. 492, 520; 306 P.3d 369, 388

(2013) (Nevada) (finding no right to jury trial because subjecting juvenile sex offenders to

registration “does not eliminate the many differences between the juvenile and adult justice

systems”); United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1014 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding no right to

jury trial because registration requirement “does not necessarily eradicate all differences between

the adult and juvenile processes and transform the latter into a ‘criminal’ proceeding”); In re

Jonathon C.B., 958 N.E.2d 227, 249 (Ill. 2011), as modified on denial of reh'g (Nov. 28, 2011)

(finding no right to jury trial because amendments to juvenile justice act, which included sex

offender registration, did not render delinquency adjudications equivalent to felony convictions);

People ex rel. Birkett v. Konetski, 233 Ill.2d 185, 203; 909 N.E.2d 783, 797 (2009) (Illinois)

(rejecting claim of right to jury trial because registration requirements “do not constitute

punishment”); In Matter of C.C.F., C3-97-552, 1997 WL 714701, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 18,

1997) (“This court, however, has held that applying the registration statute to a juvenile offender

does not violate due process.”)

16

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2024-CK-00254

STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF D. D.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit,

Parish of St. Tammany

WEIMER, C.J., additionally concurring.

In the instant case, a 14-year-old juvenile defendant was charged with and

adjudicated of second degree rape stemming from a December 27, 2021 forcible

sexual encounter with his 13-year-old girlfriend. The incident was reported for the

first time approximately six months later by the victim to a female camp counselor.

Defendant, who was still a juvenile, was tried as a juvenile in juvenile court.

Under these circumstances, the “[r]egistration of sex offenders and child

predators” is governed by La. R.S. 15:542(A)(3)(b), which provides:

The following persons shall be required to register and provide

notification as a sex offender or child predator in accordance with the

provisions of this Chapter:

....

(3) Any juvenile, who has attained the age of fourteen years at the

time of commission of the offense, who has been adjudicated delinquent

based upon the perpetration, attempted perpetration, or conspiracy to

commit any of the following offenses:

....

(b) Forcible or second degree rape (R.S. 14:42.1).

I again emphasize that Louisiana’s sex offender registry is remedial and was designed

for the laudable purpose of protecting the public. State v. I.C.S., 13-1023, p. 9 (La.

7/1/14), 145 So.3d 350, 362 (citing La. R.S. 15:540) (Weimer, J., dissenting).

However, as the restrictions placed on sex offenders are enhanced, such restrictions

begin to become precipitously close to being criminal in nature and, thus, punitive,

requiring a different level of review.

In La. R.S. 15:542(A)(3)(b), the legislature has clearly evidenced intent to have

a juvenile second degree rape offender, who has attained the age of 14, register as a

sex offender. For these reasons, I agree with the majority’s finding that defendant,

although a juvenile at the time of the offense, must register as a sex offender.

I write separately to distinguish my dissenting opinion in I.C.S., which

involved 2011 charges of aggravated rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile that

occurred in 2004 when the defendants were 12 and 13 years old. Id., 13-1023 at 2,

145 So.3d at 351. In I.C.S., the defendants, then 20 and 21 years old and being

prosecuted in adult criminal court, pled guilty to indecent behavior with a juvenile.

Id., 13-1023 at 2, 145 So.3d at 351-52. Because the defendants, who were juveniles

when the sex offenses occurred, were adults at the time of their guilty plea to a sex

offense for which registration is required for an adult, the majority of this court found

that the defendants were required by La. R.S. 15:542(A)(1)(a) to register as sex

offenders. Id., 13-1023 at 6, 145 So.3d at 353-54.

I disagreed with this holding, finding it to be problematic in that “persons who

were never statutorily-required to register at the time of their juvenile offense are now

being required to register because they pled guilty after their eighteenth birthday.”

I.C.S., 13-1023 at 9, 145 So.3d at 362 (Weimer, J., dissenting). I observed that “[a]n

analysis of all relevant statutory provisions, as opposed to singling out one provision,

demonstrates the legislature’s intent not to impose adult consequences for certain acts

when committed as a juvenile.” See id., 13-1023 at 1, 145 So.3d at 357 (Weimer, J.,

dissenting). The legislature’s omission of the offense of indecent acts with a juvenile

in the list of offenses in La. R.S. 15:542(A)(2) and (3) evidences “a legislative intent

2

not to require registration for such an offense.” Id., 13-1023 at 5, 145 So.3d at 360.

By finding that the juvenile offenders in I.C.S. were required to register as sex

offenders under La. R.S. 15:542(A)(1), I believe that the majority “ignore[d] the lines

of separation the legislature has drawn between offenses committed as a juvenile and

as an adult.” Id., 13-1023 at 9, 145 So.3d at 362 (Weimer, J., dissenting).

As to the offense at issue in this case, the legislature’s inclusion of second

degree rape by a juvenile, who has attained the age of 14 years, in the list of offenses

in La. R.S. 15:542(A)(3) evidences its intent that the offense merits protection of the

public in the form of registering as a sex offender. Thus, for second degree rape,

when committed as a juvenile, who is at least 14 years old, there are differences

between juvenile and adult consequences regarding registration as a sex offender.

For these reasons, I agree with the decision addressing the registration issue in this

case.

3

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2024-CK-00254

STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF D.D.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany

HUGHES, J., dissenting.

Registration is not punishment like gaming is not gambling, especially in the

context of a juvenile offender.

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

No. 2024-CK-00254

STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF D.D.

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany

GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that lifetime sex offender

registration for juvenile offenders does not constitute punishment for purposes of the

Eighth Amendment. Central to the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and

unusual punishment is the precept of justice that “punishment for crime should be

graduated and proportioned to [the] offense.” See Weems v. United States, 217 U.S.

349, 367, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed.793 (1910). The proportionality precept is

particularly relevant here, where a lifetime penalty is applied to juvenile crime. Such

a penalty is excessive in my view.1 Thus, despite this court’s conclusion to the

contrary, I would find that the punitive effects of La. R.S. 15:542, as applied to

juveniles, greatly outweigh its nonpunitive purposes. I would further find the effects

of the statute transform what may have been meant to be a civil remedy into a

punitive one, even if the legislature did not intend it to be so. See Smith v. Doe, 538

U.S. 84, 92, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003).2

1

Based on the non-exhaustive factors established in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144,

168-169, 83 S.Ct. 554, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963), the consideration of which determines whether an

intended civil remedy has a punitive effect, I would find that lifetime sex offender registration for

juveniles is excessive in light of its nonpunitive purposes, especially given the growing body of

research showing that youth who commit sexual offenses in childhood are unlikely to commit a

subsequent sex offense. See https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletter

s/childrens-rights/five-facts-about-juvenile-sex-offender-registration. I would also find that

lifetime sex offender registration for juveniles resembles traditional shame-based punishments and

promotes the traditional aims of punishment.

2

To assess whether a statute is punitive, courts look to the two-part test in Smith, 538 U.S. at 92,

123 S.Ct. 1140: If the intention of the legislature was to impose punishment, that ends the inquiry.

If, however, the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, we must

further examine whether the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate

the State’s intention to deem it civil. Additionally, in determining whether a punishment is cruel

and unusual, the court must consider whether there is a national consensus against the sentencing

Importantly, the magnitude of punishment inflicted through lifetime sex

offender registration is disproportionate to the comparatively diminished culpability

of the juvenile offender. As the Supreme Court has emphasized, juveniles have

lesser culpability and greater capacity for reform than adult offenders. See Miller v.

Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012); Graham v.

Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 72-73, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010); Roper v.

Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 570-571, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed. 2d (2005). A greater

possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed. Roper, 543

U.S. at 570, 125 S.Ct. 1183. And Roper and Graham, establishing that juveniles

have lessened culpability, note that such a culpability makes juveniles less deserving

of the most severe punishments.3 Graham, 560 U.S. 68, 130 S.Ct. 2011; Roper, 543

U.S. at 569, 125 S.Ct. 1183.

The lifetime penalty runs afoul of the goals of rehabilitating the juvenile

offender and aiding in his development. In addition, the lifetime penalty essentially

renders good behavior and character improvement immaterial. See Graham, 540

U.S. at 70, 130 S.Ct. 2011. An offender will be hampered in his education,

relationships, and work life long after his release from juvenile confinement. He

will encounter difficulties into his adulthood—at least until he is age 46, when it

may then be too late to make a fresh start. In the most significant years of his adult

life, he will have a constant cloud hovering, anchoring him to his crime as a minor.

practice at issue and whether the severity of the punishment in question is disproportionate to the

culpability of the offenders at issue in light of their crimes and characteristics. Graham v. Florida,

560 U.S. 48, 67, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). We also assess whether the sentencing

practice serves legitimate penological goals. Graham, 560 U.S. at 67-68, 130 S.Ct. 2011.

I note, as of this writing, the U.S. Department of Justice reports that only 18 states are in substantial

compliance with the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). See

https://smart.ojp.gov/sorna/substantially-

implemented#:~:text=159%20jurisdictions%20(18%20states%2C%20137,have%20substantially

%20implemented%20SORNA's%20requirements.

3

Roper and Graham address the most severe punishments, lifetime incarceration and the death

penalty. Nevertheless, I find the cases instructive here, as lifetime sex offender registration is a

severe punishment with severe consequences.

2

Although open to review after 25 years, lifetime sex offender registration for

juvenile offenders defines a minor’s adult life well before it has a chance to start.

For this reason, I find the punishment especially harsh. The Graham court opined

on a “meaningful opportunity” to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and

rehabilitation. See Graham, 560 U.S. at 75, 130 S.Ct. at 2011. I do not find that

such an opportunity exists here. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

3