Doe v. Blunt, No. SC 87786.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation225 S.W.3d 421
Decision Date12 June 2007
Docket NumberNo. SC 87786.
PartiesJohn DOE, Appellant, v. Honorable Matt BLUNT, et al., Respondents.
225 S.W.3d 421
John DOE, Appellant,
v.
Honorable Matt BLUNT, et al., Respondents.
No. SC 87786.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
June 12, 2007.

Brian L. Harvell, Paul H. Schramm, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

[225 S.W.3d 422]

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Michael Pritchett, Bart A. Matanic, Shawn R. McCall, Assistant Attorneys General, Jefferson City, R. David Arthur II, Office of the St. Louis County Counselor, Clayton, MO, for Respondents.

PER CURIAM.


Overview

Doe pleaded guilty to the public display of explicit sexual material in violation of section 573.060 in May 2004.1 At the time Doe pleaded guilty, the duty of registering as a sex offender did not apply to this offense. In August 2004, the law changed so that those convicted of public display of explicit sexual material were required to register as a sex offender. Section 589.400.1(2), RSMo Supp. 2005. Subsequently, a probation violation report was filed against Doe for failing to register.2

Doe filed this declaratory judgment action to determine his obligation to register as a sex offender. He argued he was not subject to the new registration requirement because to apply the new statute to him would violate the prohibition on laws retrospective in operation, Mo. Const. article I, section 13. Not having the benefit of this Court's opinion in Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. banc 2006), the trial court overruled Doe's motion for summary judgment. Phillips controls. The trial court judgment is reversed, and judgment is entered in favor of Doe. Rule 84.14.

Discussion

In Phillips, the Court determined that a law requiring registration as a sex offender for an offense that occurred prior to the registration law's effective date was retrospective in operation in violation of Mo. Const. article I, section 13. As the Court explained, a retrospective law is one that 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. Doe v. Phillips, 194 S.W.3d 833, 850 (Mo. banc 2006). The obligation to register by its nature imposes a new duty or obligation. Id. at 852.

The same is true in this case. When he pleaded guilty, Doe had no obligation to register; his duty to register arose from a change in the law. Because the new law imposed a new duty, it is a retrospective law prohibited by Mo. Const...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Bacon v. Neer, No. 10–1104.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 1, 2011
    ...violates the prohibition against a law “retrospective in its operation” in Article I, § 13 of the Missouri Constitution. Doe v. Blunt, 225 S.W.3d 421, 422 (Mo. banc 2007). Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Bacon, a Missouri resident, has no duty to register under......
  • Horton v. State, No. SD 33329
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 13, 2015
    ...effective date because of Missouri's constitutional prohibition of “laws [that are] retrospective in their operation”); Doe v. Blunt, 225 S.W.3d 421 (Mo. banc 2007) (applied Phillips to an amendment of SORA that added an offense to those offenses requiring registration).However, SORA also r......
  • Doe v. Neer, No. ED 99249.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 29, 2013
    ...operation in violation of article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution. 194 S.W.3d 833, 849–53 (Mo. banc 2006); See Doe v. Blunt, 225 S.W.3d 421, 422 (Mo. banc 2007) (similarly characterizing Doe v. Phillips ). Doe's name was subsequently removed from the sex offender registry. Therea......
  • In re the Marriage of Maggi Ann Wood, No. 28458.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 31, 2008
    ...art. I, § 13. A retrospective law includes one that creates a new obligation or duty with respect to past transactions. Doe v. Blunt, 225 S.W.3d 421, 422 (Mo. banc 2007). If a law gives something already done a different effect from that which it had when the events transpired, it is retros......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Bacon v. Neer, No. 10–1104.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • February 1, 2011
    ...violates the prohibition against a law “retrospective in its operation” in Article I, § 13 of the Missouri Constitution. Doe v. Blunt, 225 S.W.3d 421, 422 (Mo. banc 2007). Therefore, for purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Bacon, a Missouri resident, has no duty to register under......
  • Horton v. State, No. SD 33329
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 13, 2015
    ...effective date because of Missouri's constitutional prohibition of “laws [that are] retrospective in their operation”); Doe v. Blunt, 225 S.W.3d 421 (Mo. banc 2007) (applied Phillips to an amendment of SORA that added an offense to those offenses requiring registration).However, SORA also r......
  • Doe v. Neer, No. ED 99249.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • October 29, 2013
    ...operation in violation of article I, section 13 of the Missouri Constitution. 194 S.W.3d 833, 849–53 (Mo. banc 2006); See Doe v. Blunt, 225 S.W.3d 421, 422 (Mo. banc 2007) (similarly characterizing Doe v. Phillips ). Doe's name was subsequently removed from the sex offender registry. Therea......
  • In re the Marriage of Maggi Ann Wood, No. 28458.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 31, 2008
    ...art. I, § 13. A retrospective law includes one that creates a new obligation or duty with respect to past transactions. Doe v. Blunt, 225 S.W.3d 421, 422 (Mo. banc 2007). If a law gives something already done a different effect from that which it had when the events transpired, it is retros......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT