Retrospective Laws

RETROSPECTIVE LAWS

Part I of the Series—Analyzing Court Cases

Case: From the Supreme Court of Missouri-- R.L., Respondent v. State of Missouri Department of Corrections, Appellant. Go to http://www.courts.mo.gov/Courts/PubOpinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e?OpenView to read the summary of the case.

SUMMARIZING THE FACTS

1. Who are the parties?

Appellant(s) or Petitioner(s)

R.L. (An interesting aspect of this case is the use of initials instead of the full name. This is done to protect the privacy of the petitioner. Teachers may want to brainstorm with the students about why there might be a need for privacy in this case.)

Respondent (s)

The Missouri Department of Corrections. (Why is the Department of Corrections involved with this case? R.L. is on probation and the Board of Probation and Parole is part of the Department of Corrections. Teachers may also want to discuss what is meant by probation. In this case, R.L. pled guilty and he received a “suspended execution of sentence,” which means he would not have to go to jail as long as he followed certain rules—this is probation.)

2. What happened in this case?

R.L. pled guilty in 2005 to a sex crime. (Specifically to the crime of attempted enticement of a child—Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 566. 151. See http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5660000151.HTM). He was sentenced to three years in prison but his sentence was “suspended” and he was put on probation. One of the rules he was to follow was to not commit any more felonies. If he broke this rule, the Board of Parole and Probation would revoke his probation and he would have to go to jail and serve his sentence.

In 2006, the Missouri General Assembly passed a law that states in part:

1. Any person who, since July 1, 1979, has been or hereafter has pleaded …or been convicted of, or been found guilty of violating…. any of the provisions of this chapter … shall not reside within one thousand feet of any public school … or any private school giving instruction in a grade or grades not higher than the twelfth grade, or child-care facility…which is in existence at the time the individual begins to reside at the location.

2. If such person has already established a residence and a public school, a private school, or child-care facility is subsequently built or placed within one thousand feet of such person's residence, then such person shall, within one week of the opening of such public school, private school, or child-care facility, notify the county sheriff where such public school, private school, or child-care facility is located that he or she is now residing within one thousand feet of such public school, private school, or child-care facility and shall provide verifiable proof to the sheriff that he or she resided there prior to the opening of such public school, private school, or child-care facility.

4. Violation of the provisions of subsection 1 of this section is a class D felony except that the second or any subsequent violation is a class B felony. Violation of the provisions of subsection 2 of this section is a class A misdemeanor except that the second or subsequent violation is a class D felony.

(See Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 566.147 at

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5660000147.HTM

R.L. lived 1,000 feet from a school. He had lived in his place since 1997. The school was built in 1988. After the 2006 law was passed the Department of Corrections informed R.L. that he needed to move or he would be guilty of a felony and his probation would be revoked.

3. What does the party who initiated the lawsuit want to happen in this case?

R.L. is saying that since it was not a crime to live in his house when he pled guilty to the sex crime, it is unfair to now make him move. He wants to continue to live in his house and not fear having his probation revoked.

4. How did the lower courts rule?

The Circuit Court of Cole County ruled that the 2006 law is an unconstitutional retrospective law as it applies to R.L. and anyone in a situation like his.

5. How did the last court to hear the case rule?

The Supreme Court of Missouri agreed with (affirmed) the Cole County Circuit Court.

FRAMING THE ISSUE

1. What is the legal issue in this case?

The legal issue is whether the 2006 law is a “retrospective” law. If it is, it is unconstitutional.

2. What sections of the United States or Missouri Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Rights laws or other laws apply to this case?

The Missouri Constitution states in Article I, Section 13, “That no ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of contracts, or retrospective in its operation, or making any irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities, can be enacted.”

3. Are there past court decisions that are relevant to this case and have precedential value for this case? The following cases are relevant:

A 1911 case (Squaw Creek Drainage District v. Turney, 138 S.W. 12) defined retrospective law as follows: A retrospective law is one which creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability with respect to transactions or considerations already past. It must give to something already done a different effect from that which it had when it transpired.

In Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833 (Mo banc 2006), the Supreme Court of Missouri ruled that requiring someone convicted of a sex offense crime to register as a sexual offender when the crime had occurred prior to requiring registration was a retrospective law and, therefore, unconstitutional.

4. How is this case similar or different from these past cases?

Students should brainstorm on this question.

MAKING A DECISION AND EXPLAINING THE REASONING BEHIND THE DECISION

1. What are the arguments for both parties?

Appellant(s):

Students should brainstorm about this. Possible arguments may include that R.L. having to move or be guilty of a felony that will result in his probation being revoked is certainly a new disability.

Respondent(s)

Students should brainstorm about this. Possible arguments could include that any right R.L. has to living where he has since 1997 is outweighed by concerns about the children’s safety who attend the school in question.

Note: Missouri’s “retrospective” law language is considered somewhat broader than the ex post facto prohibition. Ex post facto generally means a law cannot be created tomorrow which will hold a person responsible for something he or she does today. Laws are binding only from the date of their creation or from some future date at which they are specified as taking effect. The prohibition on ex post facto laws also is found in Article I, Section 9 of the United States.

2. What kind of impact will the decision have on the law? On society?

Students should brainstorm on this question.