{"id":1920,"date":"2019-12-09T09:36:51","date_gmt":"2019-12-09T15:36:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1920"},"modified":"2019-12-09T09:36:51","modified_gmt":"2019-12-09T15:36:51","slug":"united-state-v-helton-4th-cir-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/12\/09\/united-state-v-helton-4th-cir-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"United State v. Helton (4th Cir. 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

United State v. Helton, No. 18\u20134663 (4th Cir. 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was federally indicted for failing to register as a sex offender, and moved to dismiss the indictment. As grounds, Appellant argued that his predicate state conviction — a violation of South Carolina’s voyeurism statute — did not qualify as a sex offense for the purposes of the federal Adam Walsh Act. The trial court rejected Appellant’s argument, and he entered a conditional guilty plea which preserved his argument for appellate review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s determination. A violation of South Carolina’s voyeurism statute was a sex offense for the purposes of federal SORNA — and thus he could be federally prosecuted for failing to register.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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