Main/An Easy Demurrer (Failure to Register as a Sex Offender)

Prosecutors insist that cases should be routinely joined because it promotes judicial efficiency.  But the real reason is that it prejudices the defendant.  It may not prejudice the defendant enough to merit severance, but it always increases the chance the jury would decide the case on something other than the merits of the state's argument.

Whenever possible, however, a defense attorney should seek to punish the state by demurring to an indictment that is obviously improperly joined.  After all, the prosecutor isn't really inconvenienced by severance of charges that shouldn't have been joined in the first place.  But if they have to go back to Grand Jury because the indictment was dismissed, maybe they won't be quite so unfairly aggressive next time.

What follows is an example where the indictment will always be subject to a demurrer.  

If you have a client that has at least two charges in one indictment, and one of the charges is "failure to register as a sex offender," that indictment is vulnerable.  Why?  Because there is no legal way that a failure to register charge is every properly joined with any charge other than another failure to register.

So if your client is pulled over, and a gun or drugs are found in the car, and they didn't register on their birthday six months earlier, if all those charges are in one indictment, they're improperly joined.

Or maybe your client is charged with a rape in the third degree, and, oops, he didn't register from a prior conviction for rape in the third degree, putting the new R3 and a FTR on the same indictment is not legal.

Wait, you say!  Maybe that's a motion to sever, but I've got that R3/FTR indictment in front of me and the indictment alleges Poston language ("same or similar" or "common scheme or plan", so how can I get past that?    

Here's the answer:

Although “it usually is sufficient for the state to allege the basis for joinder by using the language of the joinder statute,” Warren, 364 Or at 120, the alleged basis for joinder must “be possible, given the offenses and facts alleged.” ''Warren'', 364 Or at 122.

And there is no theory where FTR is "same or similar" to anything other than another FTR.  (See ''Garrett'' and ''Gialoretto'' for the analysis of same or similar.)   And what possible scheme or plan could be furthered by failing to register?  

Proper joinder is legally impossible.  File that demurrer.  Make them go back to Grand Jury or make you a better offer.
{{wl-publish: 2024-10-04 13:53:26 -0700 | Ryan@ryanscottlaw.com:Ryan  Scott  }}