Opinion ID: 2294072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Retroactive Application of the Requirements of the Statute

Text: Mr. Germane further argues that the 1999 amendments to chapter 37.1 should not be applied to him retroactively. It was in the Spring of 1998 that appellant committed the sexual offenses with which he was later charged. He pled nolo contendere and was sentenced on January 6, 2000. Between the dates when the crimes were committed and the date of his sentencing, the General Assembly revised the Sexual Offender Registration and Community Notification Act so as to extend the duration of registration and to establish more onerous registration obligations for certain classes of offenders. P.L.1999, ch. 255, § 1. Under the 1999 amendments and due to the aggravated nature of his crimes, Mr. Germane would be required to register with local law enforcement for the rest of his lifeas contrasted with the ten-year registration requirement under the earlier versions of the act. Id. The 1996 version of the Sexual Offender Registration and Community Notification Act provided as follows: Section 1 of this act [which corresponds to the current Sexual Offender Registration and Community Notification Act] shall take effect upon passage and shall apply to those persons who are convicted of an offense requiring registration, as defined in that section, which was committed after the effective date of this act. P.L.1996, ch. 104, § 4. The effective date of said act was July 24, 1996. The 1999 amendments did not alter the effective date of the 1996 Act, nor did they replace that date with respect to future offenses. See P.L.1999, ch. 255, § 1. This Court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Rison v. Air Filter Systems, Inc., 707 A.2d 675, 678 (R.I.1998). And, when we construe a statute, we are always mindful of the well-settled principle that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings. State v. DiCicco, 707 A.2d 251, 253 (R.I.1998). With the 1999 amendments, the General Assembly clearly intended to alter certain provisions of the Sexual Offender Registration and Community Notification Act while leaving other provisions in force. Its intent, made manifest by the nature of the changes, was to heighten the protection of the public health and safety by imposing more onerous registration requirements on sexual offenders. In particular, the General Assembly targeted classes of offenders that it deemed to be at especially high risk for future dangerousness: sexually violent predators, persons convicted of aggravated sexual offenses, and recidivists. The clear intent of the General Assembly would not be served by holding all offenders who committed the crimes between the effective date of the 1996 Act and the 1999 amendments to a less onerous requirementparticularly in light of the fact that the plain language of the 1999 Act appears to make it applicable to all persons convicted of an offense requiring registration committed after the effective date of the 1996 Act. The appellant pled nolo contendere to four counts of first degree sexual assault (an aggravated sexual offense under the act), which brought him within the ambit of the act. [50] We will not construe a statute so as to frustrate the clearly expressed intent of the General Assembly. For this reason, the 1999 amendments must be deemed applicable to Mr. Germane.