{"id":1148,"date":"2020-02-04T11:00:56","date_gmt":"2020-02-04T17:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1148"},"modified":"2020-02-08T14:38:39","modified_gmt":"2020-02-08T20:38:39","slug":"people-v-kochevar-ill-ct-app-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/02\/04\/people-v-kochevar-ill-ct-app-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"People v. Kochevar (Ill. Ct. App. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

People v. Kochevar, No. 3-14\u20130660 (Ill. Ct. App. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong>Appellant was convicted of criminal sexual abuse stemming from a teenaged relationship that became illegal when he reached the age of majority. On appeal, Appellant argued that, as-applied to him, placement on the sex offense registry was unconstitutional under both the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution as well as the Illinois Constitution’s provisions related to proportional punishments.<\/p>\n

The Illinois Court of Appeals held that registration constituted punishment and violated both state and federal constitutional principles as-applied to Appellant. Subsequently, the Illinois Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeals to reconsider in light of a separate holding that prohibited constitutional challenge to sex offense registration on direct appeal.<\/p>\n

Holding:\u00a0<\/strong>Illinois Court of Appeals held,\u00a0inter alia<\/em>, that because the Court lacked the authority to consider Appellant’s constitutional challenge, it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n