State v. Binnarr, 733 S.E.2d 890 (S.C. 2012)
Nature of Case: Petitioner was convicted of a state sex offense and required to register. State law required that he register annually at the time of his conviction. Subsequent to his conviction, state law was changed to required biannual registration, and Petitioner did not comply with this change. He was subsequently arrested and tried for failure to register.
Petitioner’s defense at trial was that he had no notice of the change in law, and that Due Process required that he have actual notice of the change. Jury convicted Petitioner, and review was sought.
Holding: South Carolina Supreme Court, in relying on prior precedent, held that Due Process requires actual notice of the change in law, and that there was not sufficient evidence in Petitioner’s case for a jury to have concluded that he received actual notice of the change. Conviction reversed.
- South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion | view via Google Scholar
- Petitioner’s Brief
- Respondent’s Brief