• 23
  • August
    2011

In November of 2007, George Williams pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact with a minor, a fourth degree felony. Although Williams' offense occurred in May 2007, he was subjected to the enhanced sex offender registration and community notification requirements contained in Ohio's Senate Bill 10. Under S.B. 10, Ohio courts were to apply new standards for sex offenders sentenced after July 1, 2007, regardless of the date of the offense.

Williams appealed, challenging the retroactive application of the new sex offender reporting guidelines. After a series of legal battles, on July 13, 2011, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion in Williams' case, which struck down portions of the law. The Williams' ruling will have implications for thousands of the state's sex offenders.

Reasoning Behind State v. Williams Decision

Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution says that "[t]he general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws." In the past, retroactive sex offender registration schemes in Ohio (and throughout most of the country) have been upheld as remedial or regulatory measures; only laws that reach back in time and create new substantive burdens, duties, or liabilities are prohibited.

In the context of sex offender registry requirements, this means new Ohio laws cannot be applied to past behavior if they are punitive.

The Ohio Supreme Court looked at a number of factors to explore whether S.B. 10 was punitive in nature, as applied to Williams. Importantly, it was enacted in the criminal code and established criminal liability for failure to comply with some registration requirements. However, S.B. 10 also imposed significantly higher restrictions than those under the law in effect at the time of Williams' offense: under the old law, Williams likely would not have had to register at all, and at most would have been required to register as a sex offender for 10 years; under the new provisions, he was required to register for 25 years. In addition, S.B. 10 mandates more frequent registration and removes discretion in setting registration requirements.

Taken as a whole, a majority of the Ohio Supreme Court found S.B. 10 to be punitive, and thus inapplicable to Williams and all those who committed sex offenses prior to its enactment.

Effect on Sex Offenders

The new decision will have no impact on sex offenders whose crime occurred after the enactment of S.B. 10. However, hundreds of Ohio sex offenders retroactively sentenced under the new provisions will be able to ask for a reduction in registration requirements to reflect the law in place at the time of their offense. If you or a loved one was sentenced for a sex crime in Ohio after July 1, 2007 for an offense committed prior to that date, please contact an experienced criminal defense attorney to discuss your legal options.