Kenneth Robert Crawford v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 07/08/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-09-1883 Kenneth Robert Crawford v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal JOINER, Jefferson Circuit (CC-10-0975) Court Judge. Pursuant Robert from to a plea Crawford, establishing agreement a convicted a residence the State, sex offender, or other a minor r e s i d e s , a v i o l a t i o n with living pleaded Kenneth guilty to accommodation where o f § 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 6 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , CR-09-1883 a part Ala. o f t h e Community N o t i f i c a t i o n A c t , § 15-20-20 e t s e q . , Code Crawford and 1975 ( " t h e CNA"). t o two y e a r s placed circuit i n prison h i m on t h r e e court The circuit b u t suspended years' probation. ordered Crawford compensation are to sentenced that sentence Additionally, the pay a $100 victims assessment. The court facts convicted was undisputed. of second-degree the v i c t i m ; he In sodomy, i n which i s therefore subject requirements o f t h e CNA. August C r a w f o r d moved i n w i t h 2009, and h i s two m i n o r register he was t o l d because doing Crawford lived so was County indicted, indictment, that violated Jury Crawford f i l e d which the c i r c u i t h i s minor to the A l a . Code child 1975. In wife, When C r a w f o r d a t t e m p t e d t o 1 the was residency t h e J e f f e r s o n County not l i v e restrictions f a m i l y from August I n A p r i l 2010, Grand Crawford h i s s o n , h i s son's he c o u l d w i t h h i s son's O c t o b e r 16, 2009. 15-20-26, grandchildren. h i s new a d d r e s s w i t h Department, Jefferson § 1998, Sheriff's with of his son t h e CNA. 16, 2009, t o C r a w f o r d was i n d i c t e d b y t h e for violating a verified court t h e CNA. A f t e r he motion t o dismiss the denied. A f t e r the motion The s o n whom C r a w f o r d moved i n w i t h i n 2009 was n o t t h e v i c t i m o f t h e s e c o n d - d e g r e e sodomy. 1 2 CR-09-1883 was denied, the issues raised pleaded Crawford guilty. On in his verified This appeal, restrictions § unconstitutional. United appeal Crawford in CNA v i o l a t e s expressly reserved h i s right motion followed. contends 15-20-26(c), Specifically, Constitution appeal t o d i s m i s s , a n d he that Ala. Crawford the Code as a p p l i e d residency 1975, contends t h e p r o t e c t i o n s o f t h e Due P r o c e s s States to that the Clause to the states of the through t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment a n d t h a t t h e CNA i s a n e x p o s t law that violates Article I, § 10, of are the United facto States Constitution. I Crawford because, he argues says, that § 15-20-26(c) i t violates i s unconstitutional the p r o t e c t i o n s of t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e as a p p l i e d t o t h e s t a t e s t h r o u g h the Fourteenth Amendment The to the United States Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t : "[N]or shall any S t a t e d e p r i v e any p e r s o n of l i f e , l i b e r t y , or p r o p e r t y , w i t h o u t d u e p r o c e s s o f l a w . " T h e Due P r o c e s s both guarantees component that fair process "'provides and includes heightened 3 a Clause substantive protection against CR-09-1883 government liberty (2000) (1997)). interference with interests.'" (quoting Here, procedural and certain Troxel Washington Crawford v. v. Granville, Glucksberg, challenges substantive fundamental the components 530 521 CNA of rights U.S. U.S. under the 57, and 65 702, 720 both the Due Process Clause. When t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of a s t a t u t e i s challenged, "'[w]e must afford the L e g i s l a t u r e the highest degree of deference, and c o n s t r u e i t s acts as constitutional i f their language so permits.' M o n r o e v . H a r c o , I n c . , 762 S o . 2 d 828 , 831 ( A l a . 2000). ' [ I ] n o r d e r t o overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n of constitutionality ... the party asserting the unconstitutionality of the [ s t a t u t e ] , bears the burden "to show that [the statute] is not constitutional."' S t a t e e x r e l . K i n g v . M o r t o n , 955 So. 2 d 1 0 1 2 , 1017 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t i n g B o a r d o f T r s . of Employees' Retirement S y s . v . T a l l e y , 291 A l a . 3 0 7 , 3 1 0 , 280 S o . 2 d 5 5 3 , 556 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ) . " S t a t e v . Adams, , [Ms. C R - 0 8 - 1 7 2 8 , N o v e m b e r ( A l a .Crim. App. 5, 2 0 1 0 ] So. 3d 2010). A. Crawford violates first argues that § 15-20-26(c), the procedural component because the s t a t u t e provides offender to restrictions petition the o f t h e Due A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , Process Clause no m e c h a n i s m f o r a c o n v i c t e d s e x court i m p o s e d b y t h e CNA. 4 f o r an exemption The p r o c e d u r a l from the component o f CR-09-1883 the Due Process deprive a person form notice of Rumsfeld, 542 due-process him of Clause of and life, an U.S. guarantees (2004). Crawford protected a claim, liberty accompanying the Here, Crawford r i g h t of f a m i l i a l offender her Due must interest that i t precludes him the from that U.S. CNA United States Hamdi CNA Clause. Glucksberg, include direct right to children, t o m a r i t a l p r i v a c y , t o use integrity, and Roberts United States the "the 521 procedure inadequate. 460 (1989). him of his son, his or w i t h h i s wife Supreme education and Court Jaycees, Supreme C o u r t held: 5 at i n the 720. marry, upbringing has These to of have one's c o n t r a c e p t i o n , to b o d i l y to a b o r t i o n . " Glucksberg, States to the as a c o n v i c t e d with U.S. v. deprives the 454, says, some procedural- deprives living children, United a the his daughter-in-law The interests v. and See on show t h a t not without heard. prevail will several different liberty interests implicit Process liberty To be a s s o c i a t i o n b e c a u s e , he daughter. recognized to state property T h o m p s o n , 490 argues m i n o r g r a n d c h i l d r e n , and and or a deprivation is constitutionally K e n t u c k y Dep't of C o r r . v. sex liberty, opportunity 507 that 468 521 U.S. U.S. a t 720. In 609 (1984), the CR-09-1883 "The C o u r t h a s l o n g r e c o g n i z e d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e Bill of Rights i s designed to secure individual liberty, i t must afford the formation and preservation of c e r t a i n kinds of h i g h l y personal relationships a s u b s t a n t i a l measure o f s a n c t u a r y from u n j u s t i f i e d i n t e r f e r e n c e by t h e S t a t e . E.g., P i e r c e v . S o c i e t y o f S i s t e r s , 268 U.S. 5 1 0 , 5 3 4 - 5 3 5 ( 1 9 2 5 ) ; M e y e r v . N e b r a s k a , 262 U.S. 3 9 0 , 399 ( 1 9 2 3 ) "The p e r s o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n s t h a t e x e m p l i f y t h e s e considerations, and t h a t t h e r e f o r e suggest some r e l e v a n t l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t m i g h t be entitled to this sort of constitutional p r o t e c t i o n , a r e those t h a t a t t e n d t h e c r e a t i o n and sustenance of a f a m i l y - m a r r i a g e , e.g., Z a b l o c k i v. R e d h a i l , [ 4 3 4 U.S. 3 7 4 , 3 8 3 - 8 6 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ] ; c h i l d b i r t h , e.g., Carey v. P o p u l a t i o n S e r v i c e s International, [431 U.S. 678, 684-86 (1977)]; the r a i s i n g and e d u c a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n , e.g., Smith v. O r g a n i z a t i o n o f F o s t e r F a m i l i e s , [ 4 3 1 U.S. 8 1 6 , 844 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ] ; a n d c o h a b i t a t i o n w i t h one's r e l a t i v e s , e.g., Moore v. East Cleveland, [ 4 3 1 U.S. 494, 503-04 (1977) ( p l u r a l i t y o p i n i o n ) ] . F a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s , by t h e i r n a t u r e , i n v o l v e deep a t t a c h m e n t s and commitments t o t h e n e c e s s a r i l y f e w o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h whom o n e shares not o n l y a s p e c i a l community of t h o u g h t s , experiences, and b e l i e f s but also distinctively p e r s o n a l a s p e c t s o f o n e ' s l i f e . Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e r e f o r e , they a r e d i s t i n g u i s h e d by such a t t r i b u t e s as r e l a t i v e s m a l l n e s s , a h i g h d e g r e e o f s e l e c t i v i t y i n d e c i s i o n s t o b e g i n and m a i n t a i n t h e a f f i l i a t i o n , and s e c l u s i o n f r o m o t h e r s i n c r i t i c a l a s p e c t s o f t h e relationship. As a general matter, only relationships w i t h these sorts of q u a l i t i e s are l i k e l y t o r e f l e c t t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h a t have l e d t o an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f f r e e d o m o f a s s o c i a t i o n a s a n i n t r i n s i c element of p e r s o n a l l i b e r t y . " Roberts, and 468 U.S. maintain a t 619-20. certain Thus, familial 6 the right associations to enter i s a into protected CR-09-1883 liberty interest. ability As such to associate with the State cannot impede o n e ' s f a m i l y w i t h o u t due one's process of law. Because Crawford satisfies procedural due-process a n a l y s i s , the procedure interest was procedural ruling accompanying i n J.L.N. v. the prong of adequate. cites his To Crawford 894 So. 2d of determine deprivation argument, State, first we m u s t now constitutionally due-process the 738 the whether liberty support this his Court's (Ala. Crim. App. 2002). In J.L.N. second-degree After the victim's unverified intended mother motion argued that released moved indicted to marry defendant's been p r e v i o u s l y r a p e ; t h e v i c t i m was t h e d e f e n d a n t was d e f e n d a n t was was the d e f e n d a n t had into dismiss the v i c t i m . t h e CNA and was he on p r o b a t i o n , the his victim defendant's the The rights; circuit pleaded guilty. unconstitutional s p e c i f i c a l l y , he 7 house. said, The an because he denied the court The because, and and f i l e d indictment o v e r b r o a d and v i o l a t e d b o t h h i s p r o c e d u r a l and due-process of his 15-year-old g i r l f r i e n d . f o r a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e CNA to motion, convicted defendant he said, i t substantive i t violated his CR-09-1883 right to intimate right to m a r i t a l p r i v a c y . directly marry, and this association stated family In h o l d i n g substantially Court with with members t h a t the the CNA and the interfered defendant's right to that " t h e p r o b l e m w i t h t h e CNA, at l e a s t i n the context o f t h i s c a s e , i s t h a t i t c o n t a i n s no e x e m p t i o n - - a n d no p r o c e d u r e b y w h i c h a c o n v i c t e d s e x o f f e n d e r can petition the court for an exemption--from the restrictions imposed by the statute and the corresponding severe punitive consequences for noncompliance. In this respect, the CNA is a r b i t r a r i l y broad, because i t s p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t i s t o c r e a t e a c o n c l u s i v e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e r e a r e no circumstances u n d e r w h i c h i t m i g h t be appropriate for a c o n v i c t e d sex offender to i n t e r a c t w i t h h i s v i c t i m - - a p r e s u m p t i o n b e l i e d by t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s of this case. Contrary to the Legislature's r e f e r e n c e i n the l a s t p a r a g r a p h of § 15-20-20.1 to providing 'certain discretion to judges for a p p l i c a t i o n of these r e q u i r e m e n t s , ' t h e CNA provides no means f o r an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d d e t e r m i n a t i o n b y a court i n those r a r e i n s t a n c e s , s u c h as t h i s one, where a c o n v i c t e d s e x o f f e n d e r and h i s v i c t i m w i s h to marry. Such i r r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n s have l o n g b e e n d i s f a v o r e d u n d e r t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e . See, e.g., C l e v e l a n d B d . o f E d u c . v . L a F l e u r , 414 U.S. 6 3 2 , 640, 94 S. C t . 7 9 1 , 39 L. E d . 2d 52 (1974)." J.L.N., the 894 So. Alabama J.L.N. v. 2d at Supreme State, 749. Although Crawford recognizes Court reversed the 8 94 J.L.N. l a c k e d s t a n d i n g So. 2d 751 to c h a l l e n g e 8 (Ala. Court's 2004 ) t h e CNA), he that decision in (holding that contends that CR-09-1883 this We Court's analysis i n J.L.N. to his case. 2 disagree. After United this States Court decided addressed procedural-due-process statute. 1 i s applicable a J . L . N . , t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e similar challenge See C o n n e c t i c u t issue to a D e p ' t o f Pub. with regard to a community-notification S a f e t y v . D o e , 538 U.S. (2003). In Doe, Connecticut's a said, i t d i d not p r o v i d e a sex offender dangerous Supreme was before offender held for a hearing particularly being disseminated Court sex argued that v e r s i o n o f t h e CNA was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b e c a u s e , he publicly convicted labeled registry. that t o determine likely t o be whether currently so b y h i s i n c l u s i o n D o e , 538 U.S. the fact that i n a a t 7. T h e the convicted sex C r a w f o r d a l s o c i t e s K.E.W. v . T.W.E., 990 So. 2 d 375 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) , f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s " c o n c u r r e d w i t h t h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n as t o t h e i r r e b u t t a b l e n a t u r e o f t h e p r e s u m p t i o n c r e a t e d b y t h e CNA." ( C r a w f o r d ' s b r i e f , p. 1 8 ) . K.E.W. h o l d s , h o w e v e r , t h a t " t h e marriage of a c u s t o d i a l parent t o a r e g i s t e r e d c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n d e r c o n s t i t u t e s a m a t e r i a l change o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; t h a t , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , i t i s n o t i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d t o s h a r e a l i v i n g a r r a n g e m e n t w i t h a s t e p p a r e n t who i s a r e g i s t e r e d c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n d e r ; and t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g t h e f a t h e r ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a change o f c u s t o d y . " K.E.W., 990 So. 2 d a t 3 8 2 . Thus, K.E.W. i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s case. 2 9 CR-09-1883 o f f e n d e r "seeks to prove--that is of "the no consequence law's alone--a requirements fact procedurally U.S. at that s h o u l d be on convicted Crawford to an law]," offender's offender opportunity to Crawford's court to him from living argument, however, because the r e s t r i c t i o n s conviction required before through the from the r e s t r i c t i o n s preclude u n d e r t h e CNA, a r g u e s t h a t he petition excluded can members. met [Connecticut dangerous-¬ has because conviction already contest." had Doe, a 538 7. opportunity his a the turn safeguarded Similarly, State under he i s n o t c u r r e n t l y the alone. Thus, any d e p r i v a t i o n of l i f e , original s h o u l d be afforded the determine whether he before the o f t h e CNA with certain i s of no consequence of the s t a t u t e t u r n procedural liberty, proceedings family that due process or p r o p e r t y resulted on in was his conviction. A c c o r d i n g l y , the r e s t r i c t i o n s Ala. Due Code 1975, Process do n o t v i o l a t e contained i n § 15-20-26(c), the p r o c e d u r a l component of the Clause. B. Crawford a l s o argues that 10 the restrictions contained in CR-09-1883 § 15-20-26(c), Ala. component of the residency restrictions narrowly tailored Code Specifically, offender, Due Process two m i n o r and her Clause to meet Crawford a grandchildren, he says, and a r e n o t state as a the interest. convicted sex from l i v i n g w i t h h i s son, or h i s wife daughter. protects fundamental rights concept of ordered exist Connecticut, protected i f they 302 U.S. by state actions legislation courts review uphold i t only compelling (1993). due state The when i t is Due i n the justice so (1937). a See are of the procedures U.S. at upon 721. "narrowly Reno 11 v. Supreme When a state right, analysis tailored Court from the state a fundamental Flores, v. rights protected strict-scrutiny States Palko Fundamental process 521 interest." United "implicit are infringes the law under the sacrificed." regardless that Clause " n e i t h e r l i b e r t y nor 319, 325-26 Glucksberg, Process that were substantive i n place. of l i b e r t y " that enacts 302 substantive h i s daughter-in-law component has because, that, b y t h e CNA substantive certain the compelling contends The would violate impede a f u n d a m e n t a l r i g h t he i s p r e v e n t e d his 1975, to 507 has and serve U.S. a 292, recognized CR-09-1883 several Due different Process liberty liberty Clause. interests Glucksberg, include children, t o m a r i t a l p r i v a c y , t o use Supreme education however, has at to and in 720. marry, the These to upbringing have of one's c o n t r a c e p t i o n , to bodily to a b o r t i o n . " Glucksberg, Court, implicit U.S. right to and the "the t h a t are 521 children, integrity, direct interests 521 U.S. a t 720. s t a t e d i t s r e l u c t a n c e to s u b s t a n t i v e due p r o c e s s b y r e c o g n i z i n g new fundamental The expand rights: "[W]e 'have always been r e l u c t a n t to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking i n this unchartered area are s c a r c e and o p e n - e n d e d . ' By e x t e n d i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n t o an a s s e r t e d r i g h t o r l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t , we, to a great extent, p l a c e the matter o u t s i d e the arena of p u b l i c debate a n d l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n . We m u s t t h e r e f o r e ' e x e r c i s e t h e u t m o s t c a r e w h e n e v e r we a r e a s k e d t o b r e a k new g r o u n d i n t h i s f i e l d , ' l e s t t h e l i b e r t y p r o t e c t e d by t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e be s u b t l y t r a n s f o r m e d into the policy preferences of the members of this Court." Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at substantive-due-process careful at 302. is "one description S e c o n d , we of those objectively, of 720 analysis the rooted must omitted). first asserted right. must d e t e r m i n e fundamental deeply (citations 12 begin with a U.S. whether the a s s e r t e d right and this Flores, the 507 rights in Thus, liberties Nation's which are, history and CR-09-1883 tradition, such and i m p l i c i t i n the concept of ordered that n e i t h e r l i b e r t y nor j u s t i c e would e x i s t sacrificed.'" 1232, 1239 720-21).), W i l l i a m s v. A t t o r n e y ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2004) cert. denied, liberty, i fthey Gen. o f A l a b a m a , (quoting Glucksberg, Williams v. King, were 378 F . 3 d 521 U.S. a t 543 U.S. 1152 (2005). Here, right to Crawford enter contends into and t h a t t h e CNA i n t e r f e r e s to maintain certain r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e c a u s e , he s a y s , § 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 6 ( c ) , prevents him grandchildren, from residing with his and h i s d a u g h t e r - i n - l a w with h i s familial A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , son, his or h i s wife minor and h e r daughter. As d i s c u s s e d above, the right family-living arrangements deeply i n this rooted Moore v. C i t y host of cases realm the of East government Nation's Cleveland, ... h a v e of f a m i l y l i f e is a t o make c h o i c e s fundamental history right that i s and t r a d i t i o n . 431 U.S. 4 9 4 , 499 consistently concerning acknowledged See (1977) ("A a 'private w h i c h t h e s t a t e c a n n o t e n t e r ' " a n d "when intrudes on c h o i c e s concerning family a r r a n g e m e n t s , t h i s C o u r t must examine c a r e f u l l y t h e living importance of t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l i n t e r e s t s advanced and t h e e x t e n t t o which 13 CR-09-1883 they are served omitted)). by the Thus, challenged the asserted a s s o c i a t e w i t h one's f a m i l y - - i s Court must whether state 27, apply the CNA a See 2011] So. Under the determining interest the offender from criminal residing when sexual grandchildren, convicted time sexual the with victim. At compelling [Ms. App. has here, i n which we sexual the offense we begin by impeding in the determine adult what criminal sex grandchildren, been of May 2011). must an any s t e p c h i l d r e n was criminal CR-10-0019, and convicted h i s minor victim; or of any children, has been i n which a minor the minor r e s i d e d or l i v e d w i t h the o f f e n d e r offense was a serve his children, o f t h e o f f e n s e ; or has offender to State has this determine analysis, offender and to to in prohibiting offense or o f any t h e v i c t i m and the has right analysis State, the Specifically, State stepchildren v. strict-scrutiny right. here--the (Ala. Crim. interest (citations a fundamental r i g h t , tailored Herring 3d what asserted right strict-scrutiny i s narrowly interest. regulation." involving related to a or b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f any child, regardless shared a residence issue here i s § 15-20-26(c), 14 of at criminal whether with was the the child A l a . Code 1975, which CR-09-1883 provides: "(c) No adult criminal sex offender shall establish a residence or any other living accommodation where a minor r e s i d e s . N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g t h e f o r e g o i n g , an a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r may reside with a minor i f the adult criminal sex o f f e n d e r i s the parent, grandparent, or stepparent o f t h e m i n o r , u n l e s s one o f t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n d i t i o n s applies: " ( 1 ) The a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r ' s p a r e n t a l r i g h t s have been or are i n the p r o c e s s of being t e r m i n a t e d as p r o v i d e d b y l a w . " ( 2 ) The a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f any c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n s e i n w h i c h any of the o f f e n d e r ' s minor c h i l d r e n , g r a n d c h i l d r e n , or s t e p c h i l d r e n were the v i c t i m . " ( 3 ) The a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f any c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n s e i n w h i c h a m i n o r was t h e v i c t i m a n d t h e m i n o r r e s i d e d o r l i v e d w i t h the o f f e n d e r at the time of the o f f e n s e . " ( 4 ) The a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r h a s ever b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f any c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g a child, r e g a r d l e s s of whether the offender was r e l a t e d to or shared a r e s i d e n c e w i t h the child victim." In Herring, interest "'the behind State children this Court addressed § 15-20-26(c), has a from harm.'" p a r t e M.J.W., [Ms. the A l a . Code compelling Herring, interest So. 2 0 9 1 1 7 1 , N o v e m b e r 12, 15 State's 1975, in 3d a t 2010] and compelling held protecting that its (quoting So. 3d Ex , CR-09-1883 ___ ( A l a . C i v . App. Because the the public, offenders, tailored addressed 1975, does S t a t e has especially we to 2010)). m u s t now meet this a compelling interest children, from determine whether that issue 3 and interest. held that In § the in protecting recidivist CNA Herring, 15-20-26(c), is sex narrowly this Ala. Court Code not "provide for a 'blanket p r o h i b i t i o n ' against sex offenders l i v i n g with minors. Rather § 15-20-26(c), A l a . Code 1975, s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l o w s s e x o f f e n d e r s t o live with their children, stepchildren, or grandchildren, and §§ 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) and (c)(4), Ala. Code 1975, prohibit only a subset of sex o f f e n d e r s from d o i n g so. That subset i n c l u d e s only t h o s e o f f e n d e r s who have o f f e n d e d a g a i n s t a c h i l d u n d e r t h e age o f 12 o r a m i n o r who was r e s i d i n g w i t h the o f f e n d e r at the time of the o f f e n s e . Given the O t h e r c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t s t a t e s have a c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g the p u b l i c , e s p e c i a l l y c h i l d r e n , from recidivist sex offenders. See, e.g., United States v. B e n e v e n t o , 633 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Nev. 2009) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e s t a t e has a c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t i n p r e v e n t i n g s e x o f f e n s e s by keeping t r a c k of sex o f f e n d e r s ) , United States v. Shenandoah, 572 F. Supp. 2d 566 (M.D. Pa. 2008) ( h o l d i n g t h a t g o v e r n m e n t has a c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t i n p r e v e n t i n g s e x u a l o f f e n s e s by a l e r t i n g c i t i z e n s and l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s o f t h e w h e r e a b o u t s o f s e x o f f e n d e r s ) , P a u l P. v. V e r n i e r o , 982 F. Supp. 961 (D.N.J. 1997) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a s t a t e has a c o m p e l l i n g interest i n p r o t e c t i n g the p u b l i c from the danger of r e c i d i v i s m p o s e d by s e x o f f e n d e r s ) , S t a t e v. H a l l , (No. 22969, June 19, 2009) (Ohio C t . App. 2009) (not r e p o r t e d i n O h i o App. o r N.E. 2d) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e r e i s a c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t i n p r o t e c t i n g c h i l d r e n f r o m sex o f f e n d e r s ) . 3 16 CR-09-1883 h i g h r a t e o f r e c i d i v i s m among s e x o f f e n d e r s a n d t h e l i m i t e d s u b s e t o f s e x o f f e n d e r s t o w h i c h §§ 1 5 - 2 0 2 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) and ( c ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, a p p l y , §§ 1520-26(c)(3) and ( c ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, a r e c l e a r l y narrowly tailored to p r o t e c t c h i l d r e n only from t h o s e s e x o f f e n d e r s who pose the h i g h e s t r i s k to t h e m , i . e . , t h o s e who h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d an obvious preference f o r minors who are i n the closest, e a s i e s t , a n d m o s t v u l n e r a b l e p o s i t i o n s when r e s i d i n g w i t h the o f f e n d e r . " Herring, So. Because tailored violate § to 3d (citations 15-20-26(c), meet the at a Ala. compelling substantive Code State component omitted). of 1975, is interest the Due narrowly i t does Process not Clause. II. Crawford next argues p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t ex p o s t § 10, of the United p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "No law." This Court post facto 1038 (Ala. Crim. 720 Although he contends App. App. Crawford that this CNA violates ... p a s s any p r e v i o u s l y upheld See, e.g., 2004); Boyd Lee v. ... the the in Article C o n s t i t u t i o n , which State s h a l l has the f a c t o laws c o n t a i n e d States challenges. (Ala. Crim. that states, ex p o s t CNA v. State, State, 960 I, in facto against ex 895 2d So. So. 2d 717, 2006). recognizes Court f a c t o c l a u s e s i n c e t h e CNA was has t h i s Court's not holding in addressed the ex a m e n d e d i n 2 0 0 5 , w h e n , he 17 Lee, post says, CR-09-1883 "substantial brief, the changes" p. 3 3 ) . legislature were Crawford made to contends t h e CNA. i n hisbrief made t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a n g e s (Crawford's that i n 2005 t o t h e CNA: "[T]he l e g i s l a t u r e increased the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e a c t from a C l a s s A misdemeanor t o a C l a s s C f e l o n y ; added t h e term 'or any o t h e r l i v i n g a c c o m m o d a t i o n ' as an a d d i t i o n a l p r o h i b i t i o n to establishing a residence, and i n c l u d e d t h e l a n g u a g e ' o r i f a n y c h i l d was a p r e v i o u s v i c t i m ' t o those circumstances under which a parent, g r a n d p a r e n t , o r s t e p p a r e n t may n o t l i v e w i t h h i s / h e r own children, grandchildren o r s t e p c h i l d r e n . The Amendments further changed the d e f i n i t i o n of e s t a b l i s h i n g a r e s i d e n c e t o i n c l u d e a s t a y o f '10 o r more a g g r e g a t e d a y s ' ' i n a c a l e n d a r month.'" (Crawford's b r i e f , The 1975, by following only pp. 33-34). substantive the legislature change in to § 15-26-20(c), 2005, however, Ala. was to the subdivisions: " ( 2 ) The a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f any c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n s e i n which any of t h e o f f e n d e r ' s minor c h i l d r e n , g r a n d c h i l d r e n , o r s t e p c h i l d r e n were t h e v i c t i m . " ( 3 ) The a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f any c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n s e i n which a m i n o r was t h e v i c t i m a n d t h e m i n o r r e s i d e d o r l i v e d w i t h the offender a t the time of the offense. " ( 4 ) The a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n d e r h a s e v e r been c o n v i c t e d o f any c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g a child, regardless of whether the offender was r e l a t e d t o or shared a residence with the c h i l d victim." 18 Code CR-09-1883 Act No. 2005-301, rewrote A l a . Acts subdivisions Contrary to (2) a n d A l a . Code 1975, felony since section 1999. See A c t No. clause In 2005, (3) a n d Crawford's contention, 26(c), This 2005. the have became 1999-572, Court f i r s t as i t a p p l i e s been added subdivision violations classified effective A l a . Acts on of as § a 15-20Class September o f t h e ex p o s t i n Lee: " T u r n i n g t o Lee's argument t h a t the residency r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e CNA i s r e t r o a c t i v e a n d p u n i t i v e i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e e x p o s t f a c t o c l a u s e , we find guidance i n our determination of the merits of h i s argument i n a r e c e n t United States Supreme C o u r t c a s e , S m i t h v . Doe, 538 U.S. 84 , 123 S. C t . 1 1 4 0 , 155 L. E d . 2 d 164 ( 2 0 0 3 ) , i n w h i c h t h e C o u r t h e l d that the Alaska S e x O f f e n d e r R e g i s t r a t i o n A c t was not u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and n o t v i o l a t i v e o f t h e ex p o s t f a c t o c l a u s e . A l t h o u g h c e r t a i n l y A l a b a m a ' s CNA d i f f e r s f r o m A l a s k a ' s l e g i s l a t i o n , we nonetheless apply the f o l l o w i n g governing p r i n c i p l e s of law gleaned from Smith to t h i s case: "'This is the first time we have considered a claim that a sex offender registration and notification law constitutes retroactive punishment f o r b i d d e n b y t h e E x P o s t F a c t o C l a u s e . The framework f o r our i n q u i r y , however, i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . We m u s t " a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e meant t h e s t a t u t e t o e s t a b l i s h ' c i v i l ' p r o c e e d i n g s . " Kansas v. H e n d r i c k s , 521 U.S. 3 4 6 , 361 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . I f t h e i n t e n t i o n of the legislature was to impose punishment, that ends the i n q u i r y . I f , 19 (4). C 1, 1999. addressed the issue t o t h e CNA the l e g i s l a t u r e facto CR-09-1883 however, the i n t e n t i o n was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil and nonpunitive, we must further examine whether the statutory scheme i s "'so p u n i t i v e e i t h e r i n p u r p o s e o r e f f e c t as t o n e g a t e [ t h e S t a t e ' s ] i n t e n t i o n ' t o deem i t ' c i v i l . ' " I b i d . ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242, 248-249 (1980)). Because we "ordinarily defer to the legislature's stated intent," Hendricks, supra, a t 361, " ' o n l y the c l e a r e s t p r o o f ' w i l l s u f f i c e to override l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t and t r a n s f o r m what has b e e n d e n o m i n a t e d a civil remedy into a criminal penalty," H u d s o n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 522 U.S. 9 3 , 100 (1997) ( q u o t i n g Ward, s u p r a , a t 249; see also Hendricks, supra, a t 3 61; United S t a t e s v . U r s e r y , 518 U.S. 2 6 7 , 290 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; United States v . One Assortment of 89 F i r e a r m s , 465 U.S. 3 5 4 , 365 (1984). "'A. " ' W h e t h e r a s t a t u t o r y scheme i s c i v i l or c r i m i n a l " i s f i r s t of a l l a q u e s t i o n of statutory construction.' Hendricks, supra, a t 361 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d ) ; s e e a l s o H u d s o n , s u p r a , a t 9 9 . We c o n s i d e r the s t a t u t e ' s t e x t and i t s s t r u c t u r e t o determine the legislative objective. Flemming v. N e s t o r , 363 U.S. 603, 617 [(1960)]. A conclusion that the l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o p u n i s h w o u l d s a t i s f y an ex p o s t facto challenge without further inquiry i n t o i t s e f f e c t s , so c o n s i d e r a b l e d e f e r e n c e m u s t be a c c o r d e d t o t h e i n t e n t as t h e l e g i s l a t u r e has s t a t e d i t . "'The c o u r t s "must the legislature, in penalizing mechanism, expressly or i m p l i e d l y a 20 f i r s t ask whether establishing the indicated either p r e f e r e n c e f o r one CR-09-1883 l a b e l o r t h e o t h e r . ' H u d s o n , s u p r a , a t 99 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n marks omitted).' "538 U.S. a t 92-93, 123 S. C t . 1 1 4 0 . "Here, i n c r e a t i n g t h e r e s i d e n c y r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e CNA, t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t e x p r e s s l y indicate a preference to l a b e l the statute punitive. R a t h e r , t h e L e g i s l a t u r e f o u n d t h a t t h e p u b l i c was i n danger from sex offenders because of the high recidivism rate among such offenders. The L e g i s l a t u r e also determined t h a t , because of such danger, certain vulnerable segments of the p o p u l a t i o n s h o u l d be a f f o r d e d e x t r a p r o t e c t i o n f r o m sex offenders[,] thus the requirement that sex o f f e n d e r s l i v e some d i s t a n c e f r o m s c h o o l s a n d c h i l d care facilities. The L e g i s l a t u r e concluded that r e q u i r i n g sex offenders t o l i v e some d i s t a n c e from s c h o o l s and c h i l d care f a c i l i t i e s worked t o a s s i s t l o c a l law enforcement agencies i n t h e i r e f f o r t s to p r o t e c t t h e i r communities. Therefore, from the face of the statute, we can determine that the Legislature intended to create a civil scheme designed to protect t h e c i t i z e n s o f Alabama and t h e i r c h i l d r e n f r o m h a r m , a s ' " [ n ] o t h i n g on t h e f a c e of t h e s t a t u t e suggests t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e sought to create anything other than a c i v i l ... s c h e m e d e s i g n e d t o p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c f r o m harm." [Kansas v . H e n d r i c k s , 521 U.S. 3 4 6 , 361 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . ] ' S m i t h , 538 U.S. a t 9 3 , 123 S. C t . 1 1 4 0 . "We also note, as t h e C o u r t d i d i n Smith, that although the statute i n question i s found i n the C r i m i n a l Code, such p l a c e m e n t i s n o t d i s p o s i t i v e o f the q u e s t i o n of whether the l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i n enacting the residency r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e CNA was p u n i t i v e . R a t h e r , ' [ t ] h e l o c a t i o n and l a b e l s o f a s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n do n o t b y t h e m s e l v e s transform a c i v i l r e m e d y i n t o a c r i m i n a l o n e . ' 538 U.S. a t 9 4 , 123 S. C t . 1 1 4 0 . The c r i m i n a l s e c t i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a Code contains numerous provisions that do n o t involve c r i m i n a l punishment, i n c l u d i n g provisions 21 CR-09-1883 involving jurisdiction and venue, searches and seizures, victims' rights, preliminary hearings, etc. T h e r e f o r e , we do n o t h o l d t h e c o d i f i c a t i o n o f the Act i n the C r i m i n a l C o d e as 'sufficient to s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t was p u n i t i v e . ' 538 U.S. a t 95, 123 S. C t . 1140. " B e c a u s e we conclude t h a t the i n t e n t of the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e i n p r o m u l g a t i n g the residency requirement of the CNA was to create a civil, nonpunitive legislative scheme, we must now determine whether the s t a t u t e i s so p u n i t i v e i n e f f e c t as t o n e g a t e t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ' s i n t e n t . " ' I n a n a l y z i n g the e f f e c t s of the Act we r e f e r to the seven f a c t o r s noted i n Kennedy v . M e n d o z a - M a r t i n e z , 372 U.S. 144, 168-169 (1963), as a useful framework. These f a c t o r s , which migrated i n t o o u r ex post facto case law from double jeopardy j u r i s p r u d e n c e , have t h e i r e a r l i e r o r i g i n s in cases under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments, as well as the Bill of A t t a i n d e r a n d t h e Ex P o s t F a c t o Clauses. See i d . , a t 1 6 8 - 1 6 9 , a n d n n . 2 2 - 2 8 . B e c a u s e the Mendoza-Martinez f a c t o r s are designed to apply in various constitutional c o n t e x t s , we h a v e s a i d t h e y a r e "neither e x h a u s t i v e nor d i s p o s i t i v e , " U n i t e d S t a t e s v . W a r d , 448 U.S. [ 2 4 2 ] , a t 249 [(1980)]; [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v . One Assortment of] 89 F i r e a r m s , [465 U.S. 354,] a t 3 6 5 , n. 7, b u t are " u s e f u l g u i d e p o s t s , " Hudson [v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ] , 522 U.S. [ 9 3 ] , a t 99 [ ( 1 9 9 7 ) ] . The f a c t o r s most r e l e v a n t t o our a n a l y s i s are whether, i n i t s necessary operation, the r e g u l a t o r y scheme: has been r e g a r d e d i n our h i s t o r y and traditions as a p u n i s h m e n t ; imposes an affirmative disability or r e s t r a i n t ; promotes the t r a d i t i o n a l aims of p u n i s h m e n t ; has a r a t i o n a l c o n n e c t i o n t o a n o n p u n i t i v e purpose; or i s e x c e s s i v e w i t h 22 CR-09-1883 respect to this purpose.' " S m i t h , 538 U.S. a t 97, 123 S. C t . 1140. 'It is i m p o r t a n t to n o t e , however, t h a t " t h e s e f a c t o r s must be considered i n r e l a t i o n to the s t a t u t e on i t s f a c e , " [ K e n n e d y v . M e n d o z a - M a r t i n e z , 372 U.S. 144, 169 (1963)], and "only the clearest proof" will s u f f i c e t o o v e r r i d e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t and transform what has been denominated a c i v i l remedy i n t o a criminal penalty, [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v . W a r d , 448 U.S. 2 4 2 , 249 ( 1 9 8 0 ) ] . ' H u d s o n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 522 U.S. 93, 1 0 0 , 118 S. C t . 4 8 8 , 139 L. E d . 2d 450 (1997)." Lee v. State, 895 Crawford Court that Lee 2d at 1041-43. contends, distinguishable this So. however, from Lee. i n Lee Specifically, based failed to " i t s decision, plead or prove restrictions of the CNA imposed restraint him or any other has 1975, on children and an sex affirmatively established directly that offender, Crawford argues that in part, grandchildren." § 15-20-26(c) to operation, our the on offender," § and, fact residency he 15-20-26(c), limits his that, ability as regulatory to Ala. enjoy p. as to is he Code his convicted live with exhaustive whether, scheme or 35). a factor i s "neither analysis says, and (Crawford's b r i e f , 23 the the r e s t r i c t s h i s " r i g h t to l i v e w i t h dispositive" necessary is affirmative disability that c e r t a i n f a m i l y m e m b e r s , t h a t one nor case whether Although Crawford c o r r e c t l y asserts sex his in its actually CR-09-1883 punitive i n nature. clearest proof" say the that t h i s Court, in So. again the i s an while CNA ex has post facto we cannot law. pending review in to the CNA State, , Crawford's a punitive effect, "the a d d r e s s e d an e x p o s t f a c t o c h a l l e n g e we C o s p e r v. 3d that CNA Moreover, B e c a u s e C r a w f o r d c a n n o t e s t a b l i s h by [Ms. CR-09-0747, ( A l a . C r i m . App. upheld the CNA case against was December 2010). an ex 17, 2010] In Cosper t h i s post facto Court challenge stating: " I n L e e v . S t a t e , 895 So. 2d 1038 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 4 ) , t h i s C o u r t , r e l y i n g on S m i t h v . Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 123 S. Ct. 1140, 155 L. E d . 2d 164 (2003), c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e CNA was n o t an e x p o s t f a c t o l a w , e i t h e r f a c i a l l y o r as a p p l i e d t o t h e a p p e l l a n t i n t h a t c a s e , who was an a d u l t c r i m i n a l s e x offender. T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e CNA was i n t e n d e d t o c r e a t e a c i v i l r e g u l a t o r y scheme and t h a t i t d i d n o t h a v e any punitive effect on the appellant that would n e g a t e t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t o f t h e a c t . 895 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 4 2 - 4 3 . See B o y d v . S t a t e , 960 So. 2d 717 (Ala. C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) . See a l s o S a l t e r v . S t a t e , 971 So. 2d 31 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2007)." So. 3d at B a s e d on is the . foregoing, the judgment of the circuit court affirmed. AFFIRMED. Welch, P.J., and Windom, K e l l u m , and 24 Burke, J J . , concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.