Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kenneth L. ANTHIS, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
OPINION
Appellant, Kenneth L. Anthis (Anthis) appeals the trial court's denial of his motion challenging the constitutionality of the Sex Offender Registration Act.1
We affirm.
Upon appeal, Anthis alleges that the sex offender registration law violates Article I, Section I of the Indiana Constitution. He maintains that the sex offender registration law is unconstitutional in that it violates his right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness․” Ind. Const. Art. I, Sec. 1.
Anthis concedes that there are no Indiana cases addressing this particular issue.2 Anthis, however, urges us to adopt the position the Ohio Court of Appeals took in State v. Williams, No. 97-L-191, 1999 WL 76633 (Ohio Ct.App. Jan. 29, 1999), which held that a similarly worded Ohio statute was unconstitutional. His reliance upon this opinion is misplaced. In State v. Williams (2000) 88 Ohio St.3d 513, 728 N.E.2d 342, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Ohio Court of Appeals and held that the sex offender registration law does not violate the constitutional rights of sex offenders.3
Therefore, by relying solely upon a case that has been overruled, Anthis has failed to carry his burden to demonstrate that the statute is unconstitutional.
The judgment is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. I.C. 5-2-12-1 et seq. (Burns Code Ed. Repl.1997 & Supp.1999) and I.C. 35-38-1-7.5 (Burns Code Ed. Supp.1999).
2. Anthis acknowledges that in Spencer v. O'Connor (1999) Ind.App., 707 N.E.2d 1039, trans. denied, a panel of this court determined that the sex offender statute did not violate Article I, Section 24 of the Indiana Constitution prohibiting ex post facto laws.
3. The Ohio Supreme Court had not yet decided this case at the time Anthis filed his Appellant's Brief on September 20, 1999.
SULLIVAN, Judge
BAILEY, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 42A01-9908-CR-272.
Decided: June 12, 2000
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)