The Missouri Southern District Court of Appeals upheld a Reynolds County Circuit Court ruling today that a man who raped and murdered another man in 1979 has to register as a sex offender.
The man, referred to as John Doe in the opinion, felt the crime had happened long enough ago that he should not have to register as a sex offender.
The man wanted his name removed from the registry.
His crime was described in the court opinion:
Plaintiff, who was then a member of the U.S. Army, was convicted of murder and sodomy in a military court in 1979. Plaintiff "was the instigator of the violence that led to the death of the drunken victim." Furthermore, "[t]he circumstances surrounding the offenses of murder and sodomy were extremely aggravating." Plaintiff kicked the victim about the head until the victim lost consciousness. Plaintiff then goaded another participant in the crime "into committing anal intercourse on the unconscious victim, [and] attempted to masturbate in the victim's face[.]" Plaintiff and his associates then urinated on the victim's prostrate form and left him without attempting to ascertain his condition or need for medical care.
Plaintiff was found guilty of the offenses and sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 35 years. Plaintiff was released on parole on July 13, 1990.
On September 24, 2009, Plaintiff filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, naming as defendants the Reynolds County Sheriff and the Missouri State Highway Patrol (collectively "Defendants"). Plaintiff sought a determination of whether SORA applied to him and contested the constitutionality of the statute. Defendants answered the petition and filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The trial court found (1) the statute was not unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff; and (2) Plaintiff was a tier III offender with a lifetime registration requirement and therefore was required to register under SORA and SORNA.
The appellate court rejected John Doe's contention that any obligation he had to report as a sex offender had already expired by the the time the law was enacted in 1995.
We need to know this perpetrator's name. Then it will be possible to determine if he is on the R-8 payroll.
ReplyDelete