{"id":1940,"date":"2019-12-30T14:36:02","date_gmt":"2019-12-30T20:36:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1940"},"modified":"2020-01-04T10:44:48","modified_gmt":"2020-01-04T16:44:48","slug":"mcclernon-v-state-ind-ct-app-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/12\/30\/mcclernon-v-state-ind-ct-app-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"McClernon v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

McClernon v. State 19A-CR-1305 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant who was required to register as a sex offender was charged with violating a state law that mandated he disclosure to law enforcement any vehicle that he operated on a “regular basis.” Appellant had used a vehicle for five days, and sought to dismiss the indictment against him on the basis that the statute was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion, and he sought review.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. While observing that reasonable people could disagree as to the meaning of the statute, the court held that it was not unconstitutionally vague.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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