State in Interest of D.D.

• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CRAIN, J.
• Citation: 413 So.3d 319
• Docket Number: 2024-CK-00254
• Decision Date: 27 June 2025
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF D.D.
• topic: Civil Rights,Constitutional Law,Criminal Law

413 So.3d 319

2024-00254 (La. 6/27/25)

STATE of Louisiana IN the INTEREST OF D.D.

No. 2024-CK-00254

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 27, 2025

On Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany

Robert Craig Stem, for Applicant - Defendant.

Matthew Caplan, Elizabeth Baker Mur-rill, Julious Collin Sims, Caitlin Ann Huettemann, for Respondent - State of Louisiana.

CRAIN, J.

₁In this juvenile proceeding, we find Louisiana’s sex offender registration law, when applied to a juvenile, does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment or implicate the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

D.D. was adjudicated delinquent for committing second degree rape in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute 14:42.1A(1). He was fourteen years old at the time of the delinquent act and sixteen when adjudicated. The juvenile court committed D.D. to the custody of the Office of Juvenile Justice until his twenty-first birthday. As required by law, D.D. was also informed he must register as a sex offender upon his release from confinement. See La. Child. Code art. 884.1A(2); La. R.S. 15:542A(3)(b) and C(2). In a pre-adjudication motion, D.D. challenged the constitutionality of the registration requirement, arguing application of the law to a juvenile is unconstitutional under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The juvenile court denied the motion.

D.D. appealed, asserting assignments of error concerning the adjudication and the denial of his motion contesting the constitutionality of the sex offender registration requirement. The court of appeal affirmed the adjudication and denial of the constitutional claims. See ₂ State in Interest of D.D., 23-0754 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/26/24), 383 So. 3d 1000. This court granted D.D.’s writ application. See State in Interest of D.D., 24-0254 (La. 11/27/24), 396 So. 3d 440.

[1] D.D. argues his adjudication is not supported by sufficient evidence to prove the delinquent act. He further maintains the juvenile court erred by limiting questions of a witness and not considering another witness’s failure to preserve cell phone data. Lastly, D.D. seeks review of the denial of his constitutional claims. This final assignment of error prompted our writ grant; however, we recognize courts should avoid constitutional rulings when the case can be disposed of on nonconstitutional grounds. Cat’s Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans Through Department of Fin., 98-0601 (La. 10/20/98), 720 So. 2d 1186, 1199. Mindful of this principle, we have reviewed D.D.’s assignments of error concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the specified evidentiary rulings, which were thoroughly addressed by the court of appeal, and find no merit to those assignments. See State in Interest of D.D., 383 So. 3d at 1006-09. Our discussion thus begins with D.D.’s constitutional claims.

DISCUSSION

[2] All government originates with the people and is founded on their will alone. See La. Const, art. I. Unlike the federal constitution, the provisions of our state constitution are not grants of power but instead are limitations on the otherwise plenary power of the people exercised through the legislature. Hainkel v. Henry, 313 So. 2d 577, 579 (La. 1975). A party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must therefore point to a particular provision of the state or federal constitution that restricts the legislature’s power to enact the statute. See Welch v. United Medical Healthwest-New Orleans L.L.C., 24-0899 (La. 3/21/25), 403 So. 3d 554, 561, reh’g denied, 24-0899 (La. 5/8/25), 408 So.3d 203; Board of Directors of Louisiana Recovery Dist. v. All Taxpayers, Prop. Owners, & Citizens of State of La., 529 So. 2d 384, 387 (La. 1988).

[3-6] Unless fundamental rights or privileges and immunities are involved, a strong presumption exists the legislature acted within its constitutional authority in 1₃adopting legislation. Welch, 403 So. 3d at 561; Board of Directors of Louisiana Recovery District, 529 So. 2d at 387. Statutes are generally presumed constitutional, and the party challenging the validity of the statute bears the burden of proving it is unconstitutional. State v. Spell, 21-0876 (La. 5/13/22), 339 So. 3d 1125, 1130-31; State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La. 7/1/08), 985 So. 2d 709, 719. This presumption is especially forceful with statutes enacted to promote a public purpose. Welch, 403 So. 3d at 561; Polk v. Edwards, 626 So. 2d 1128, 1132 (La.1993). Doubt as to legislation’s constitutionality is resolved in favor of its constitutionality. Welch, 403 So.3d at 562; Polk, 626 So. 2d at 1132. The constitutionality of a statute presents a question of law subject to de novo review. Welch, 403 So.3d at 561; Spell, 339 So. 3d at 1130.

D.D.’s constitutional challenge targets Louisiana’s sex offender registration law (“Act”), specifically the statutory requirement that he register as a sex offender because of his adjudication for second degree rape. See La. R.S. 15:542A(3)(b). The Act mandates D.D. register with appropriate law enforcement agencies within three days of his release from custody. See La. R.S. 15:542C(2). To register, D.D. must provide his name, address, and information about his conviction to those agencies, along with additional information such as his social security number, birthdate, a current photograph, DNA sample, and physical characteristics such as sex, race, hair color, weight, scars, and tattoos. See La. R.S. 15:542C(l)-(2). A central registry to help disseminate this information to law enforcement agencies was created by the Act. See La. R.S. 15:542.1.5A(1) and D. The registry is also accessible online by the general public, but the website does not publish some of the offender’s more personal information, like his social security number, telephone number, and email addresses. See La. R.S. 15:542.1.5A(2).

The Act also contains extensive community-notification provisions that require an offender publicize his conviction in a notice that must be provided to a 1₄broad swath of people within a certain radius of his residence. See La. R.S. 15:542.1A(l)-(2). The notice must also be published twice in the official journal of the parish where the offender resides and included in any online profiles. See La. R.S. 15:542.1A(2)(a) and D(l). Other notices may be required, and all community notifications must be repeated every five years. See La. R.S. 15:542. lA(2)(b) and (3).¹

Significantly for present purposes, juveniles such as D.D. are exempt from all community-notification requirements, with one exception. Subsection 15:542.1C provides:

Any juvenile required to register in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter shall be exempt from any notification requirements of this Section except for the notification required by the provisions of Subsection B of this Section.

The noted exception applies if the offender provides recreational instruction to persons under the age of seventeen, in which case he has to post the notice in the building or facility where the instruction is given. See La. R.S. 15:542.1B. D.D. has not challenged this community-notification provision. Accordingly, when analyzing D.D.’s constitutional challenges, our review is confined to the Act’s registration requirements. The community-notification provisions are either not applicable or not at issue. See La. R.S. 15:542.1C.

D.D. contends the Act’s registration requirement, when applied to a juvenile, violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” and constitutes an adult criminal sentence imposed without the constitutional safeguard of a jury trial. We address each of these claims separately.

₅Eighth Amendment Claim

[7-9] The threshold question for D.D.’s

Eighth Amendment claim is whether the Act’s registration requirement is “punishment.” “The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on … what method or kind of punishment a government may impose after a criminal conviction.” City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520, 542, 144 S.Ct. 2202, 2216, 219 L.Ed.2d 941 (2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Eighth Amendment “limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 667, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1410, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977). “The common inquiry across the [Supreme] Court’s Eighth Amendment, ex post facto, and double jeopardy jurisprudence is determining whether the government’s sanction is punitive in nature and intended to serve as punishment.” Hinds v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 259, 265 (1st Cir. 2015).

In a consistent line of cases, this court has repeatedly held the Act’s requirements are not punishment.² The Act creates a civil regulatory scheme intended to protect the public from sex offenders, who often pose a high risk of recidivism, by facilitating the exchange of relevant information among law ₆enforcement agencies and alerting the public. See La. R.S. 15:540; State v. Cook, 16-1518 (La. 5/3/17), 226 So. 3d 387, 392 (per curiam); State v. I.C.S., 13-1023 (La. 7/1/14), 145 So. 3d 350, 355-56; State ex rel. Olivieri v. State, 00-0172 (La. 2/21/01), 779 So. 2d 735, 747. This determination is based on a two-step process that first looks at the legislative intent behind the Act and next considers the effects of the law in application. See I.C.S., 145 So. 3d at 355-56; State v. Trosclair, 11-2302 (La. 5/8/12), 89 So. 3d 340, 357; Olivieri, 779 So. 2d at 747; see also Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 1147, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003).

The legislative intent is apparent from the stated findings and purposes in the Act, which begins by recognizing a paramount governmental interest in protecting the public from sex offenders, who often post a high risk of recidivism. See La. R.S. 15:540A. The lack of available information about these offenders had historically impaired law enforcement’s efforts to protect their communities, conduct...