Opinion ID: 2626021
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What are the elements of failure to register?

Text: ¶ 15 In concluding that the deadlines and residential scenarios in the failure to register statute are not alternative means, the Court of Appeals also concluded that they are not elements of the crime. Peterson, 145 Wash. App. at 678, 186 P.3d 1179. As noted above, although these questions are related, they should be analyzed separately. ¶ 16 For the purposes of this case, we need not examine every deadline and residential scenario potentially at issue under RCW 9A.44.130. We need decide only whether residential status is an element because this is the element that Peterson primarily claims the State failed to prove. The State charged, instructed, and provided evidence on the 72-hour deadline. [7] ¶ 17 Peterson contends that under RCW 9A.44.130(6)(a), the state needed to prove the fact that Peterson was homeless and that under RCW 9A.44.130(5)(a), the state needed to prove the fact that Peterson moved to a residential address without properly notifying authorities. Suppl. Br. of Pet'r at 10. This is because, according to Peterson, [a] person's residential status determines that person's legal obligations to register under the statute. . . . If the state cannot prove residential status, it cannot prove an obligation to register within a certain deadline with certain authorities as required by either (5)(a) or (6)(a). Id. at 11. ¶ 18 The elements of a crime are commonly defined as `[t]he constituent parts of a crime[usually] consisting of the actus reus, mens rea, and causationthat the prosecution must prove to sustain a conviction.' State v. Fisher, 165 Wash.2d 727, 754, 202 P.3d 937 (2009) (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 559 (8th ed.2004)). Although Peterson is correct that a registrant's residential status informs the deadline by which he must register, it is possible to prove that a registrant failed to register within any applicable deadline without having to specify the registrant's particular residential status. That is what happened here. Peterson registered outside of any deadline contained in the statute. It was therefore unnecessary to show his particular residential status in order to prove a violation of the statute. ¶ 19 The to-convict instruction submitted to the jury specified that Peterson failed to register within 72 hours. Sufficient evidence in the record supported this contention. Verbatim Report of Proceedings (Vol. I) at 19-35, 63. Peterson's argument now appears to be that the jury had no way of knowing whether the 72-hour deadline applied to him. Without knowing his residential status, it is possible he had, for example, 10 days to register if he moved from one county to another. [8] While this argument has some initial appeal, it rests on the faulty premise that residential status is an element of the crime. In this case, Peterson's specific residential status was not essential to proving the criminal act at issue: that he failed to provide timely notice of his whereabouts under any of the statutorily defined deadlines after vacating his registered address. ¶ 20 In support of his argument, Peterson cites three Court of Appeals cases in which an offender's residential status was pivotal. Suppl. Br. of Pet'r at 10-12 (citing State v. Pickett, 95 Wash.App. 475, 975 P.2d 584 (1999); State v. Bassett, 97 Wash.App. 737, 987 P.2d 119 (1999); State v. Stratton, 130 Wash.App. 760, 124 P.3d 660 (2005)). These cases are distinguishable. In Pickett and Bassett, the Court of Appeals took umbrage with the fact that the sex offender registration statute failed to offer offenders with no fixed residence a way to comply with the statute, i.e., one could not register as homeless. Pickett, 95 Wash.App. at 479, 975 P.2d 584; Bassett, 97 Wash.App. at 739-40, 987 P.2d 119 (citing Pickett, 95 Wash.App. at 476, 975 P.2d 584). This failing has since been remedied by the legislature. LAWS OF 1999, 1st Sp. Sess., ch. 6, § 1. Pickett and Bassett do not hold or otherwise imply that an offender's residential status is an element that must be proved in order to sustain a conviction. Likewise, Stratton does not suggest that residential status is an element that must be proved. There, the defense presented evidence that the offender was still residing at his fixed residence, albeit in a car in the driveway. Stratton, 130 Wash.App. at 763-64, 124 P.3d 660. Because the offender had never moved in the first place, the duty to register was not triggered and no crime had been committed. Id. at 766-67, 124 P.3d 660. ¶ 21 The Court of Appeals here recognized that requiring the State to prove an offender's new residential status would frustrate the failure to register statute. Peterson, 145 Wash.App. at 677, 186 P.3d 1179. Because the State cannot account for Peterson's whereabouts between the time he left his Everett apartment and registered as homeless, the State cannot prove [which of the statutory deadlines applies]. Since Peterson failed to register for more than 30 days, he clearly violated his duty to keep his registration current under all options in the statute. Yet, under Peterson's theory he could not be convicted of violating any one of them. Id. The purpose of the sex offender registration statute is to aid law enforcement in keeping communities safe by requiring offenders to divulge their presence in a particular jurisdiction. LAWS OF 1990, ch. 3, § 401. The criminal punishment attendant to failure to register helps effectuate this purpose. The Court of Appeals correctly observed that allowing individuals to escape punishment when they have failed to register within the prescribed deadlines is an absurd reading of the statute. Peterson, 145 Wash.App. at 677, 186 P.3d 1179 (citing State v. Ammons, 136 Wash.2d 453, 457, 963 P.2d 812 (1998) (noting that courts cannot construe statutes in a matter that renders them absurd)). Reduced to its essentials, Peterson's argument is that an offender who successfully hides his whereabouts after moving cannot be convicted of failure to register despite clear evidence that he failed to register within any statutorily prescribed deadline. We reject this argument and hold that residential status is not an element of the crime of failure to register.