{"id":1168,"date":"2018-12-20T08:35:48","date_gmt":"2018-12-20T14:35:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1168"},"modified":"2019-10-21T16:02:39","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T21:02:39","slug":"state-v-habtai-wash-ct-app-div-i-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2018\/12\/20\/state-v-habtai-wash-ct-app-div-i-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. Habtai (Wash. Ct. App. Div. I 2018)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">State v. Habtai, No. 76627-9\u2013 I (Wash. Ct. App. Div. I 2018)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong>Appellant was convicted of a kidnapping offense and ordered by the trial court to register. Appellant argued that, since elements of his offense did not specify age of his victim or biological relationship, trial court exceeded its authority under <em>Apprendi<\/em> to order registration. Trial court rejected argument, and appeal resulted.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:\u00a0<\/strong> Washington Court of Appeals held that registration was non-punitive in nature, subsequent amendments notwithstanding, and therefore that the trial court did not offend <em>Apprendi<\/em> principles in ordering registration.<\/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\/Court-of-Appeals-Opinion-2.pdf\">Court of Appeals Opinion<\/a>\u00a0| view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=5048049238318280594&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4000005&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholaralrt&amp;hist=dzTKkIsAAAAJ:9420905675477732165:AAGBfm2nRiVld2ZbGyaze4fKOBbfIxq3CA\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Google Scholar<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2018\/12\/Appellants-Brief-6.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\/Respondents-Brief.pdf\">Respondent&#8217;s Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2018\/12\/Reply-Brief.pdf\">Reply Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Washington Court of Appeals holding that, since state SORN was non-punitive, appellant was not deprived of right to jury trial when he was ordered to register, fact that neither plea nor element of the offense specified age of victim or biological relationship notwithstanding.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2018\/12\/20\/state-v-habtai-wash-ct-app-div-i-2018\/\" class=\"more-link\">State v. Habtai (Wash. Ct. App. Div. I 2018)<\/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":[42,25,123],"class_list":{"0":"post-1168","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-9th-cir","8":"tag-apprendi-alleyne","9":"tag-washington","10":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1168","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=1168"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1168\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1168"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1168"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1168"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}