State v. Bryant
614 S.E.2d 479 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's strict liability statute criminalizing a sex offender's failure to register does not violate due process when applied to an out-of-state offender who had actual notice of a lifelong duty to register in another state. Such notice is sufficient to create inquiry notice, meaning the offender has a duty to inquire about registration requirements upon relocating to a new state.
Facts:
- On March 20, 2000, while incarcerated in South Carolina for prior sex crime convictions, defendant Bryant signed a form acknowledging his lifelong duty to register as a sex offender in South Carolina.
- The South Carolina notification form stated that registration was required for 'similar offenses from other jurisdictions' and that if he moved out of state, he must provide written notice to his last registering county sheriff within 10 days.
- In October 2000, Bryant traveled to Winston-Salem, North Carolina, with a fair and met Crystal Sunshine Miller.
- On or about November 1, 2000, Bryant decided to stay in North Carolina and moved in with Miller, establishing residency.
- Bryant lived in North Carolina until his arrest on April 2, 2001, but he never registered as a sex offender in North Carolina.
- Bryant also failed to notify South Carolina authorities that he had moved to a new state as required by the form he signed.
- During an interview with a detective, Bryant admitted he was required to register in South Carolina and that he was also a convicted sex offender in Florida.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was indicted in Forsyth County for failure to register as a sex offender and for attaining habitual felon status.
- A jury in Forsyth County Superior Court (the trial court) found defendant guilty of both charges.
- The trial court sentenced defendant to a minimum term of 133 months and a maximum term of 169 months imprisonment.
- Defendant, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court) found the registration statute unconstitutional as applied to the defendant and reversed the conviction.
- The State, as petitioner, filed a petition for discretionary review with the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does North Carolina's strict liability statute, N.C.G.S. § 14-208.11, which criminalizes a convicted sex offender's failure to register, violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution as applied to an offender who moved from another state and lacked actual notice of North Carolina's specific registration requirement?
Opinions:
Majority - Brady, Justice.
No. The North Carolina statute does not violate the Due Process Clause because a convicted sex offender's knowledge of a duty to register in one state creates sufficient inquiry notice to satisfy due process for a strict liability conviction for failure to register in another state. The court reasoned that the narrow due process exception for lack of notice established in Lambert v. California does not apply. Unlike the general felon registration in Lambert, sex offender registration is a pervasive, nationwide public safety measure directed at a specific, high-risk class of individuals. Bryant's conduct was not 'wholly passive' because he had actual notice of a lifelong registration duty in South Carolina, was informed he must report an out-of-state move, and knew all 50 states had enacted such registration programs by 1996. These circumstances created a duty for Bryant to inquire about North Carolina's registration laws, and his failure to do so means the traditional rule that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' applies.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the applicability of the Lambert v. California 'actual notice' exception to due process for individuals subject to nationwide regulatory schemes. By establishing that notice in one jurisdiction can create 'inquiry notice' in another, the court strengthens the state's power to enforce strict liability registration laws against transient populations. This ruling prioritizes the public safety interests behind sex offender registration over an individual's claim of ignorance, effectively placing the burden on convicted sex offenders to learn and comply with the registration laws of any state in which they are present.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Bryant