State v. Meador
State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee
David Lynn Meador, Defendant and Appellant
Southeast Judicial District,
Judge Richard W. Grosz
|Nature of Action:||Sexual Offense|
|Term:||05/2010  Argument: 05/06/2010|
|ND cite:||2010 ND 139|
785 N.W.2d 886
Listen to recording of oral argument in MP3 format
Appellant's Statement of the Issues:|
1. Whether the Appellant's fundamental right to be free from ex post facto laws was violated by the retrospective application of N.D.C.C. Section 12.1-32-15 to Appellant's 1994 Kentucky charges?
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or authority in denyng a motion to dismiss where the Appellant did not move to a new residence for three days under N.D.C.C. Sec. 12.1-32-15 (2007 Ed.)?
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion or authority in its counting three days to include weekends and holidays?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I.The North Dakota Sex Offender Registration Statute Does Not Violate the Ex Post Facto Provisions of the North Dakota Constitution or the United States Constution.
A.Meador must prove the sex offender registration statute is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.
B.Summary of the requirements of N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-15.
C.N.D.C.C. 12.1-32-15 is not unconstitutional.
1.The North Dakota statute is not an ex post facto law.
2.Whether a sex offender registration statute is punitive depends on the civil remedy provided by the statute.
3.There is no ex post facto violation when applying North Dakota's sex offender registration statute to Meador.
II.There is No Exception in the North Dakota Sex Offender Registration Statute that Precludes Meador from Registering if He has Not Found a New Address After Three Days.
A.Meador need not establish a new residence for the three-day registration period to begin.
B.Registration with law enforcement is only complete when it complies with the attorney general's guidelines.
III.The Trial Court Properly Instructed the Jury on the Three-Day Registration Period.
|Add Docket 20100063 RSS|
|1||02/26/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL: 02/24/2010|
|2||03/03/2010 MOTION FOR Remand|
|3||03/03/2010 ACTION BY CHIEF JUSTICE (Mot/Remand). Granted|
|4||03/03/2010 ORDER OF REMAND|
|5||03/04/2010 Order Sent to Parties|
|6||03/11/2010 MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE PENDING APPEAL. RspDue: 03/16/2010|
|7||03/12/2010 APPELLANT BRIEF|
|8||03/12/2010 APPELLANT APPENDIX|
|9||03/12/2010 DISK NONCOMPLIANCE - Brief primarily typed, but contains handwritten portions.|
|10||03/15/2010 Affidavit in Support of Motion for Stay|
|11||03/15/2010 Response to Motion for Stay Filed|
|12||03/15/2010 EFILED RESPONSE (response to mtn for stay)|
|13||03/16/2010 Reply to Response to Motion for Stay|
|14||03/16/2010 EFILED RESPONSE (reply to response)|
|15||03/17/2010 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT (Motion for Stay). Denied|
|16||03/26/2010 RECORD ON APPEAL & Separate Nos. 33, 102, 131, & 132 (Transcripts)|
|17||04/09/2010 APPELLEE BRIEF (e-filed)|
|18||04/09/2010 E-FILED BRIEF - AEB|
|19||04/09/2010 APPELLEE APPENDIX (e-filed)|
|20||04/09/2010 E-FILED APPENDIX (AEA)|
|21||04/20/2010 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|22||04/22/2010 Made 7 copies of AEB|
|23||04/22/2010 Made 6 copies of AEA|
|24||04/26/2010 Received $25 surcharge for AEB|
|25||04/27/2010 Request to waive oral argument on behalf of Appellee|
|26||04/27/2010 E-FILED MOTION|
|27||04/28/2010 ACTION BY SUPREME COURT. Denied|
|28||04/30/2010 Supplemental Clerk's Certificate dated March 9, 2010 (Entries 133-135)|
|29||05/03/2010 REPLY BRIEF (handwritten) (PDF)|
|30||05/04/2010 DISK NONCOMPLIANCE (RYB) (Handwritten)|
|31||05/06/2010 APPEARANCES: David L. Meador; Lee M. Grossman|
|32||05/06/2010 ARGUED: Meador; Grossman|
|33||05/06/2010 ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|
|34||07/13/2010 DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED|
|35||07/13/2010 UNANIMOUS OPINION: Maring, Mary Muehlen|
|36||07/15/2010 Judgment E-Mailed to Parties|
|38||08/11/2010 RECEIPT SIGNED BY DISTRICT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE|