{"id":1162,"date":"2018-12-20T08:24:45","date_gmt":"2018-12-20T14:24:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1162"},"modified":"2018-12-20T08:25:08","modified_gmt":"2018-12-20T14:25:08","slug":"state-v-petersen-beard-kan-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2018\/12\/20\/state-v-petersen-beard-kan-2016\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. Petersen-Beard (Kan. 2016)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">State v. Petersen-Beard, 377 P.3d 1127 (Kan. 2016)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was convicted of a sex offense and filed a motion in the trial court to preclude registration under Kansas&#8217; Offender Registration Act (KORA) as being unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment and state constitutional grounds. Trial court denied motion and Appellant appealed and Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. Kansas Supreme Court granted review.<\/p>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nHolding:\u00a0<\/strong> Kansas Supreme Court held, overruling multiple other decisions that it issued the same day, that KORA was not sufficiently punitive to overcome the legislature&#8217;s stated civil intent in enacting registration scheme. Decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals affirmed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2018\/12\/Kansas-Supreme-Court-Opinion.pdf\">Kansas Supreme Court Opinion<\/a>\u00a0| view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=15410614843622606086&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4000005&amp;sciodt=4000006\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Google Scholar<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2018\/12\/Appellants-Brief-5.pdf\">Appellant&#8217;s Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2018\/12\/Appellees-Brief-5.pdf\">Appellee&#8217;s Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.hdnews.net\/eb120aa0-7f5e-5884-9934-5e621e29243f.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">\u2018Denial of justice\u2019 to delay Kansas Supreme Court rulings for eight months, justice says<\/a><\/li>\n<li>Law Review &#8212;\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/kuscholarworks.ku.edu\/bitstream\/handle\/1808\/26580\/Strong_2018_KansasLawReview.pdf?sequence=1&amp;isAllowed=y\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">The Kansas Offender Registration Act: Where\u2019s the Constitutional Limit?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/volokh-conspiracy\/wp\/2016\/04\/25\/in-a-single-day-the-kansas-supreme-court-issues-important-constitutional-opinions-and-overrules-them\/?noredirect=on&amp;utm_term=.75883b3f1674\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">In a single day, the Kansas Supreme Court issues important constitutional opinions \u2014 and overrules them<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kansas Supreme Court opinion overruling decisions issued the same day, ultimately holding that the Kansas state SORN law was not sufficiently punitive so as to be subject to Ex Post Facto prohibitions. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2018\/12\/20\/state-v-petersen-beard-kan-2016\/\" class=\"more-link\">State v. Petersen-Beard (Kan. 2016)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":836,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[36,138],"class_list":{"0":"post-1162","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-ex-post-facto","8":"tag-kansas","9":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/836"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1162"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1162\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}