A case involving sex offender registration for someone moving to the county is back in Chautauqua County Court.

Last week’s decision is the latest in a string of Appellate Division rulings involving the county’s use of the foreign registration clause of the Sex Offender Registration Act. Judges in the Fourth Department Appellate Division sent the latest appeal case involving a California man back to Judge David Foley for further arguments because the record does not clearly establish whether the California man’s crimes constitute a sex crime violent under New York. State Law.

“Based on the record and information before us, we are unable to determine whether the nature of the California conviction offense was violent in nature,” Fourth Department Appellate Division Judge Stephen Lindley wrote in his opinion released Friday. “Under these circumstances, we similarly cannot determine whether the foreign registration clause of Corrections Act Section 168a(3)(b) is constitutional under the Due Process Clause as applied to the defendant. We therefore remand, remand the matter, and remand the matter to the County Court to decide whether the foreign registration clause is constitutional as applied to the defendant.”

In January 2005, the California man was convicted of lewd or lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14. According to the case summary filed by the New York Sex Offender Review Board, the charges underlying the California conviction were that the man, who was 18 or older, engaged in sexual conduct with a developmentally challenged boy who had 12 and 13 years on several occasions between August 2002 and October 2003. There were no other convictions on his record.

Unlike other foreign registration cases that have come out of Chautauqua County in recent months, the California man’s case has open questions that the court could not answer without more information. If the California conviction meets the definition of a violent sex offense under New York law, then the court would find the alien registration clause as applied to it constitutional. If the California case is nonviolent in nature, then the court would rule that the California man should not be considered a violent sex offender in New York.

Determining whether or not the California man’s prior offense qualifies as a sexually violent crime touches on two areas of the foreign registration clause of the state’s Sex Offender Registration Act. The first part of the law requires courts to determine whether the original offense meets the essential elements of a sexually violent crime in New York State. The five Court of Appeals judges agreed that there was not enough information to determine whether or not the county met the essential elements test. The second reason for sending the case back to Chautauqua County Court is for District Attorney Jason Schmidt to argue on the record why the California man’s case meets the essential elements test.

The decision was not unanimous. Three judges joined Lindley’s opinion in the case. Judge John Curran agreed with the ruling, saying the California man had proven a due process clause challenge by showing there was no rational basis for designating him a violent sex offender based solely on the California conviction that would require him to register as a sex offender in California. .

Meanwhile, Judge Jeannette Ogden agreed with the first reason to send the case back to Chautauqua County Court for further arguments. But, she reiterated earlier views that at least part of the foreign registration clause is unconstitutional. Three times in recent months, the Fourth Department Appellate Division has ruled that the county unconstitutionally required sex offenders who move to the county from other states to register as violent sex offenders, despite a low-risk classification by the Board of examination of sex offenders.