Alaska’s Retroactive Application of ASORA Amendments Violates Ex Post Facto Clause
Alaska’s Retroactive Application of ASORA Amendments Violates Ex Post Facto Clause
The Alaska Supreme Court held that its rule prohibiting precedential effect of 2-to-l decisions does not apply retroactively. Therefore, Doe v. State, 189 P3d 999 (Alaska 2008)(Doe I), holding that 1998 amendments to Alaska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (ASORA) violate the state’s ex post facto prohibition, is binding precedent.
Alaska enacted ASORA in 1994, requiring convicted sex offenders to register annually for 15 years and provide certain information to authorities.
John Does A & B were convicted of 1995 and 1996 sex offenses. Both were required to register annually under ASORA.
In 1998, Alaska amended ASORA to require quarterly registration for life for certain sex offenders. It also expanded the scope of personal information offenders must disclose to authorities. In 2008, Doe I held that ASORA’s amendments violate Alaska’s ex post facto prohibition and do not apply to people who committed their crimes before the amendments became effective.
Nevertheless, John Doe A was subjected to the new quarterly and lifetime registration requirements while both Does A & B were required to disclose the additional personal information required by the 1998 amendment.
Both A & B sued, claiming that the ASORA amendment violated Alaska’s ex post facto prohibition. The superior court agreed that the quarterly and lifetime registration provisions violated the ex post facto prohibition, but held that the personal information disclosure amendments did not.
The State appealed, arguing that Doe I was not binding precedent because it was a 2-to-l decision, which “shall not have precedential effect” under Alaska Appellate Rule 106.
That rule became effective on November 10, 2010 - two years after Doe I was decided - but is silent as to whether it applies retrospectively. That question turned upon whether the rule’s provisions are procedural or substantive in nature.
Rejecting the State’s arguments that the rule is procedural as unpersuasive, the Court concluded “that the change ... is substantive.” That is because “attorneys, litigants, and courts have relied on our two-to-one decisions made prior to the promulgation of Appellate Rule 106(b) as binding precedent. To retroactively remove the precedential value of these decisions would eliminate the rights created by these decisions.”
Holding that Rule 106(b) is not retroactive and Doe I is, therefore, binding precedent, the Court declined to overrule Doe I and affirmed the superior court’s decision that the 1998 ASORA amendment violates Alaska’s ex post facto prohibition. See: Alaska v. Doe A, 297 P.3d 885 (Alaska 2013).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Alaska v. Doe A
| Year | 2013 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 297 P.3d 885 (Alaska 2013) |
| Level | State Supreme Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |