This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant, a registered sex offender in Curry County, was required under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) to renew his registration annually before December 31. While he registered in 2003 and 2004, he failed to do so in 2005. The Defendant claimed that the Curry County Sheriff’s Department (CCSD) policy of limiting registration hours to Wednesdays between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. prevented him from registering on December 29, 2005, a Thursday, and that he was told to return the following Wednesday, January 4, 2006. He was arrested before he could return (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court: The Defendant was convicted of failure to comply with SORNA’s registration requirements, a fourth-degree felony. The court denied the Defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, finding sufficient evidence that the Defendant had an opportunity to register and failed to do so willfully (paras 5-6).
- State v. Burke, 2007-NMCA-093: The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the CCSD’s registration policy was consistent with SORNA’s mandate and represented a reasonable balance of public and private interests (paras 7-8).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the CCSD’s restrictive registration policy prevented him from registering on time, making his failure to register not willful. He also contended that the policy violated SORNA’s preemption statute, which prohibits local authorities from enacting rules affecting sex offender registration (paras 3, 5, 7, and 10).
- State: Asserted that the Defendant’s failure to register was willful, presenting evidence that the CCSD had suspended the restrictive registration policy during the relevant period and that staff were instructed not to turn anyone away. The State argued that the Defendant did not attempt to register as claimed (paras 4, 5, and 13).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant’s failure to register as a sex offender under SORNA willful?
- Did the CCSD’s registration policy comply with SORNA’s legislative mandate?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant’s conviction but reversed the Court of Appeals’ opinion, finding that the appellate court improperly addressed issues not raised at trial (paras 14-15).
Reasons
Per Petra Jimenez Maes J. (Chávez CJ., Serna, Bosson, and Daniels JJ. concurring):
The Court clarified that the central issue was whether the Defendant’s failure to register was willful, not the validity of the CCSD’s registration policy. The Court emphasized that the State had the burden to prove all elements of the crime, including willfulness. The jury was presented with sufficient evidence to support the conviction, including testimony that the restrictive registration policy had been suspended and that the Defendant was not turned away when he allegedly attempted to register. The jury was entitled to reject the Defendant’s version of events and infer that his failure to register was willful. The Court also noted that the record lacked sufficient evidence to evaluate the CCSD’s policy outside its effect on the State’s burden of proof (paras 11-13).