Minnesota v Joey Wayne Nelson

3-12-2012 Minnesota:

Minnesota v Joey Wayne Nelson

The evidence is insufficient to sustain appellant’s conviction of failing to register as a predatory offender pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 3(b) (2008), because the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant no longer was living at his registered primary address or that he had begun living at a new primary address.

A Pine County jury found Joey Wayne Nelson guilty of failing to register as a predatory offender, as required by Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 3(b) (2008). The state presented evidence that, on one particular day, Nelson had not shoveled new-fallen snow at his registered primary address in Pine County and was present in another state. We conclude that the state’s evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Nelson no longer was living at his registered primary address or that he had established a new primary address. Therefore, we reverse.

CONCLUSION:
The state’s evidence is insufficient to prove that Nelson violated section 243.166, subdivision 3(b). Thus, the evidence is insufficient to sustain Nelson’s conviction of failing to register as a predatory offender. Accordingly, Nelson’s conviction must be reversed.

State v Hanson

2-21-2012 Minnesota:

State v Hanson -AND-
Gunderson v Hvass

Note: Normally this case would not appear in this Court Decisions blog because the appellate court lacked sufficient evidence to render a decision and remanded the case back to the lower court. However, this case is included because of a "Subtle Odd Law Fact" about registration in Minnesota. If a person is charged with a sex crime in Minnesota, the requirement to register is based on the "Charged Offense" not the offense they are convicted of. see below:

The court said: I. The record is inadequate to determine whether appellant is required to register as a predatory offender.

Appellant argues that he is not required to register as a predatory offender because he was not convicted in California of an offense enumerated in Minn. Stat. § 243.166, subd. 1b(a). The state contends that registration is required because appellant's California conviction arises out of the same set of circumstances as the rape alleged in the California complaint. Resolution of this issue turns on the language of the registration statute.

A person with a Minnesota conviction must register if:

(1) the person was charged with or petitioned for a felony violation of or attempt to violate, or aiding, abetting, or conspiracy to commit, any of the following, and convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for that offense or another offense arising out of the same set of circumstances:
[list of laws prohibiting certain offenses] [or]

(2) the person was charged with or petitioned for a violation of, or attempt to violate, or aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit [list of laws prohibiting certain offenses], and convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for that offense or another offense arising out of the same set of circumstances . . . .

A few years back I had read a news item "Man Loses Fight to Avoid Listing on Sex Offenders' Registry" and had not fully understood it then. (Appellate court case: Gunderson v Hvass) Today's case explains how that can happen.

And as crazy as this sounds, Minnesota is a civil commitment state, and looking down the road I guess someone not convicted of a sex offense could possibly be civilly committed. Weird.

eAdvocate