{"id":909,"date":"2018-08-29T15:49:45","date_gmt":"2018-08-29T20:49:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=909"},"modified":"2019-10-21T15:33:10","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T20:33:10","slug":"state-v-wade-mo-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2018\/08\/29\/state-v-wade-mo-2013\/","title":{"rendered":"State v. Wade (Mo. 2013)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">State v. Wade, 421 S.W.3d 429 (Mo. 2013)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Group of consolidated appeals involving two cases where people required to register were convicted of charged with violation of statute that imposed presence restrictions, but trial court dismissed in line with prior Missouri caselaw that held such laws were violative of state constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. Third individual was convicted of violation after trial. State and third individual appealed, and appeals were consolidated.<\/p>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nHolding: <\/strong> Missouri Supreme Court held that state constitutional prohibition against retrospective laws applied only to civil, and not to criminal, laws. Presence restrictions were criminal, and therefore, could be applied retrospectively.<\/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\/08\/Missouri-Supreme-Court-Opinion.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Missouri Supreme Court Opinion<\/a>\u00a0| view via <a href=\"https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=17315120623886130900&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=4000005&amp;sciodt=4000006\" 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\/08\/Appellants-Opening-Brief.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Appellant&#8217;s Opening Brief<\/a>\u00a0(Wade)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2018\/08\/State-Brief.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">State Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2018\/08\/State-Reply-Brief.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">State Reply Brief<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2018\/08\/Respondents-Brief.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Respondent&#8217;s Brief<\/a>\u00a0(Peterson)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li>[Missouri Law Review] &#8211; <a href=\"https:\/\/scholarship.law.missouri.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=4127&amp;context=mlr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Civil or Criminal?: Deciding Whether a Law may be Applied Retrospectively yet Constitutionally in Missouri. State v. Wade<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Missouri Supreme Court held that state constitutional prohibition against retrospective laws applied only to civil, not criminal laws, therefore presence restrictions applied to people on the registry could be constitutionally applied retroactively. <\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2018\/08\/29\/state-v-wade-mo-2013\/\" class=\"more-link\">State v. Wade (Mo. 2013)<\/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":[6],"tags":[67,36,92,53],"class_list":{"0":"post-909","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-residency-cases","7":"tag-8th-cir","8":"tag-ex-post-facto","9":"tag-missouri","10":"tag-presence-restrictions","11":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/909","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=909"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/909\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=909"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=909"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=909"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}