Chapter 163A

 

      163A.005

(formerly 181.805)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Conviction for public indecency is “sex crime” under this section if defendant had prior conviction for public indecency when defendant was convicted for that offense. Because defendant’s conviction was for “sex crime” under this section, defendant was ineligible to have conviction set-aside under ORS 137.225. State v. Tucker, 268 Or App 723, 343 P3d 656 (2015), Sup Ct review denied

 

      163A.010

(formerly 181.595, then 181.806)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Registration requirement under 1995 version of statute was not ex post facto law under Oregon or United States Constitution. State v. MacNab, 334 Or 469, 51 P3d 1249 (2002)

 

      Crime of failure to report as sex offender occurs at midnight on tenth day after defendant changes residence; venue therefore lies in whichever county defendant is located at that time. State v. Thompson, 251 Or App 595, 284 P3d 559 (2012)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 35 WLR 83 (1999)

 

      163A.015

(formerly 181.596, then 181.807)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      “Change” of residence occurs at time sex offender departs from old residence. State v. Cox, 219 Or App 319, 182 P3d 259 (2008)

 

      Person who reports is not required to provide proof of address to comply with reporting requiremcent. State v. Depeche, 242 Or App 147, 252 P3d 861 (2011)

 

      Crime of failure to report as sex offender occurs at midnight on tenth day after defendant changes residence; venue therefore lies in whichever county defendant is located at that time. State v. Thompson, 251 Or App 595, 284 P3d 559 (2012)

 LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 35 WLR 83 (1999)

 

      163A.020

(formerly 181.597, then 181.808)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Requirement that listed person notify authorities of change in residence applies to person moving out of state. State v. Wigglesworth, 186 Or App 374, 63 P3d 1185 (2003)

 

      Requirement that sex offender who “moves into” state report to authorities does not apply to offender who moved into state before requirement existed. State v. Clum, 216 Or App 1, 171 P3d 980 (2007)

 

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS: 35 WLR 83 (1999)

 

      163A.040

(formerly 181.599, then 181.812)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Registration requirement does not constitute additional punishment for past criminal offense. State v. Matthews, 159 Or App 580, 978 P2d 423 (1999)

 

      Proper venue for failure to make annual report within 10 days of sex offender’s birthdate is county where offender was present ten days after birthdate or county where offender resides. State v. Massei, 247 Or App 30, 268 P3d 774 (2011)

 

      Where defendant, required to comply with sex-offender reporting of this section, moved out of residence but at time of arrest had not yet secured new residence and address, defendant did not fail to report within 10-day window of this section because time in which to report is triggered by acquisition of new residence, not by vacating previous residence. State v. Hiner, 269 Or App 447, 345 P3d 478 (2015)

 

      Failing to report move to new residence is felony if underlying sexual offense for which juvenile has been adjudicated would have been felony in Oregon because “the crime for which the person is required to report” refers to sexual offense for which person is convicted as adult or adjudicated as juvenile. State v. Hinkle, 287 Or App 786, 404 P3d 986 (2017), Sup Ct review denied

 

      Reporting requirements for convicted sex offenders that are set forth in separate paragraphs in this section are separate crimes and therefore defendant’s convictions under each provision are not subject to merger, as provided in ORS 161.067. State v. Crider, 291 Or App 23, 418 P3d 18 (2018)

 

      163A.120

(formerly 181.820)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

      Petitioner is not required to prove total absence of risk that petitioner might reoffend. Patterson v. Foote, 226 Or App 104, 204 P3d 97 (2009)

 

      163A.215

(formerly 181.835)

 

NOTES OF DECISIONS

 

Under former similar statute (ORS 181.587)

 

      Giving notice of predatory sex offender to community does not impose sufficient affirmative disability to render statute punitive in nature, therefore constitutional protections against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy and cruel and unusual punishment do not apply. Meadows v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 181 Or App 565, 47 P3d 506 (2002), Sup Ct review denied