# State v. Pollard

> Indiana Supreme Court · June 30, 2009 · 908 N.E.2d 1145

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504988

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. Anthony W. POLLARD, Appellee (Defendant Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 30, 2009
- **Citations:** 908 N.E.2d 1145; 2009 Ind. LEXIS 511; 2009 WL 1883731
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Boehm
- **Judges:** Boehm, Dickson, Rucker, Shepard, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 49 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504988

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that application of residency restriction statute, which prohibited those convicted of certain sex offenses from living within 1,000 feet of school property, youth program centers, or public parks, to defendant who had lived at his house for several years before the ef…
- finding that a residency restriction statute was excessive in relation to protecting children from sex offenders where it did “not consider the seriousness of the crime, the relationship between the victim and the offender, or an initial determination of the xisk of re-offending”
- finding that residency restriction subjected the offender “to constant eviction because there is no way for him or her to find a permanent home in that there are no guarantees a school or youth program center will not open within 1,000 feet of any given location”
- holding that retroactive application of Ohio's residency restriction statute violates the federal Ex Post Facto Clause
- holding the second part of the test, if necessary, is to examine whether the statute is “so punitive in effect as to negate that intention thereby transforming what had been intended as a civil regulatory scheme into a criminal penalty.”

## Opinion text

BOEHM, J.,
concurs in result and concurs in the opinion exeept as to Part B3, believing the absence of a scienter element for certain forms of child molesting is not significant in evaluating the punitive character of this statute.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9504988. Public record. Not legal advice.