holding sex offender registration provision applied to persons convicted of attempted as well as completed sexual offenses even though provision made no reference to attempted offenses
How later courts described this case
- holding sex offender registration provision applied to persons convicted of attempted as well as completed sexual offenses even though provision made no reference to attempted offenses
- “a statutory amendment ought not to be interpreted so broadly as to destroy the entire objective of the statutory scheme”
- “While it is true that when the legislature amends statutory language, it is presumed that it intends to make a change in existing law, a statutory amendment ought not to be interpreted so broadly as to destroy the entire objective of the statutory scheme.”
- “Registration for lifetime places a defendant on notice that when subsequent sexual crimes are committed in the area where he lives, he will be subject to investigation. This may well have a prophylactic effect, deterring him from future sexual crimes.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EHRLICH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result. I believe that the majority unnecessarily reached the issue of constitutionality of sex offender registrar tion given that the defendant did not question “the legislative power to oblige sex registration” and given the discussion of the issue of attempt.