Summary 2006 WY 41

Summary of Decision issued April 6, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: In the Matter of: JJF v. State and In the Matter of: CNS v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 41

Docket Number: 05-91, C-05-10

Appeals from the District Court of Natrona County, The Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl (05-91) and The Honorable W. Thomas Sullins (C-05-10), Judges.

Representing Appellants (Defendants): Tom Sedar and Kimberly A. Corey of Law Office of Tom Sedar, PC, Casper, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Sedar.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and H. Michael Bennett, Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Mr. Bennett.

Date of Decision: April 6, 2006

Issues: Whether the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1, §§ 2,6 and 7 of the Wyoming Constitution require the standard of proof at a risk-of-reoffense hearing to be clear and convincing evidence. Whether there was sufficient evidence in No. C-05-10 for the district court to determine that Appellant CNS posed a moderate threat of reoffense.

Holdings: (The cases were treated as confidential in the Court because the statutes provide for different levels of notice to the public for different risk assessments.) The Wyoming Sex Offender Registration Act is found at Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-19-301. The Act provides for registration and a risk-of-reoffense hearing process. The question of whether due process of law requires the standard of clear and convincing evidence is a question of law and was reviewed de novo by the Court. The two standards of proof at issue are preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence.
The Court considered the arguments proposed and stated that Wyoming’s statutes, like others nationwide, are regulatory rather than punitive in purpose. The statutory scheme provides the offender with notice and a right to be heard, with both sides participating in the evidentiary hearing. They exist to protect the public from repeat sexual offenders. It is the Court’s opinion that the exercise of the police power directly to protect the citizenry in this fashion is a reasonable exercise of fundamental governmental authority. The possible injury to a sexual offender from an erroneous classification is not significantly greater than any possible harm to the state. The “possible injury” is that he will be classified at a higher risk than what he actually is, but the “possible harm” to the State is a new sexual assault victim. The sexual offender does not stand on equal footing with the unconvicted as far as his right to be left alone by the government is concerned.
Sufficiency of the Evidence in Case No. C-05-10: The Court’s standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in the same context as in the instant case can be found at In re Avery. The district court in the CNS case clearly applied the statutory factors. The Court reviewed the record of the CNS case and stated that as long as sufficient evidence was presented that supports the district court’s findings and conclusions, the Court would not re-weigh the evidence or second guess the district court. All that is necessary for a finding of a moderate risk is that the State produce enough evidence to distinguish a particular offender from those considered to be low risk.

The Court affirmed in both cases.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/qjeuj .