IL: Appellate court reverses sex offender registration conviction
The Fifth District Appellate (state) Court found the state did not provide enough evidence that a man had to continually register as a sexual offender on the date of his offense. In a decision that’s not the easiest to comprehend, the court ruled that the state failed to provide any evidence that his 10 year period of registration was tolled or extended as a result of a subsequent conviction and for that reason the conviction for failure to register could not stand.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wanted to share this:
For the second time this year, an Illinois state appellate court has overturned sex offender registration conditions placed on a defendant. The unanimous decision was issued by a panel of Illinois’ 3rd District Appellate Court on 8/20/18.
The court found that Illinois’ Sex Offender Registration Act and related restrictions, as applied to Devin M. Kochevar, violated both the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution.
Kochevar and his alleged victim knew each other for several years. They were both on the track team at the same high school. When Kochevar turned 18 the relationship became sexual; her parents called the police when they found out about it.
In February 2018, the panel in People v. Tetter, 2018 IL App (3d) 150243 (a different case) wrote that, given the circumstances of that case, the lifetime sex offender statutes were “grossly disproportionate to his crime.” In that case, Tetter was convicted of criminal sexual abuse when, at age 21, he was involved in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl. Kochevar in his appeal argued that the court should consider the Tetter decision when weighing in on his case.
The panel in the Kochevar case wrote that given the sentence imposed and the misdemeanor charge Kochevar was convicted of, “… the pervasive negative impact of the SORA [Sex Offender Registration Act] regulations is genuinely shocking in this case.” The panel agreed with Tetter’s conclusion that sex offender registration requirements have turned into something punitive. The court went on to write, “We find nothing in his personal record or in the record on appeal that suggests that the rigid technical structure of the sex offender statutes are necessary to restrain instincts or predilections to prey on children that Kochevar gives no evidence of having now or ever having had. The imposition of the restrictions is punitive, and because it is unnecessary in order to secure Kochevar’s compliance with the statutes’ expressed purpose of preventing abuse of children, it is grossly disproportionate to his crime and violates the eighth amendment to the United States Constitution.”
In its decision the court vacated Kochevar’s requirement to register as a sex offender or to comply with any restrictions that Illinois imposes on sex offenders who have been convicted of an offense against a minor.
Judge McDade wrote “This system that the legislature has devised affirmatively obstructs the [s]tate’s constitutional objective of restoring this particular offender to useful citizenship in violation of the proportionate penalties clause of the Illinois Constitution.”
Good share, Big J! Appreciate it.
There have been a few good things coming out of IL!
So the salient points here are that
1) he was initially only required to register for 10 years
2) during that 10 year period he was convicted of three additional nonsexual offenses
3) after serving a three year sentence he was allegedly told that he had an additional 10 year registration requirement
4) he was rearrested for failing to register and convicted, sentenced to two years probation
5) his conviction was overturned on review because it could not be proven that he was properly notified of an obligation to register after his initial 10 year period lapsed.
So before too many people jump up and shout “they never told me either!” This guy was already finished with his registration requirement from his sexual offense but the law apparently allows them to compel you to continue to register after any other convictions, sexual or otherwise, they just can’t prove they told him that.
I know I get in trouble for posting lyrics to songs, and I mean no harm, ill-will, or malicious intent.
But for the courts to be changing their minds, now, with such quickness—one after another I just have to say
all in all, its just another brick in the wall.
IF we keep at it, that wall will become unstable and fall…
(Hopefully on the Books)
It is nice when you see a prosecutor screw up. Under many circumstances, a defendant can be retried after his conviction has been overturned on appeal. However, when the appellate court rules there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, the defendant CAN’T be retried. I hope the Illinois Supreme Court leaves the decision alone.