At sentencing, the trial judge stated: “I am going to find that this was a sexually motivated crime, and I'm going to require private sex offender registration.” The trial court did not state on what facts it was basing its determination. Moreover, the trial court failed to make any findings of fact on the record or in the journal entry to support its conclusion that the crime was sexually motivated. Other than the affidavit, the State did not present any evidence that L.L.B. had committed the crime for the purpose of sexual gratification. The State must present substantial competent evidence to support the determination and the defendant must have the opportunity to confront any witnesses against him. Therefore, the trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to make the factual findings required by the KORA. As a result, we reverse the trial court's determination and remand for a hearing to determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, L.L.B. exposed himself to the victim for the purpose of his sexual gratification.
Friday, May 11, 2012
No finding to support registration requirement
Karen R. Palmer won in In re L.L.B., No. 106,469 (Kan. App. May 4, 2012), obtaining a new hearing to determine whether L.L.B. had to register as an offender in a Sedgwick County assault and disorderly conduct adjudication. The district court had ordered L.L.B. to register finding that the offenses were sexually motivated. The COA held that the district court had failed to make appropriate findings to support a registration requirement:
The COA also noted that on remand, the district court should consider legislative amendments that may have provided for exceptions for certain juvenile offenders.
[Update: the state filed a PR on June 4, 2012.]
[Further update: the KSC denied the state's PR and the mandate issued on October 12, 2012.]