Sufficiency of Evidence for Failure to Register under Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
Commonwealth v. Roberts, 293 A.3d 1221 (Pa. Super. 2023), allocatur granted Sept. 12, 2023, appeal docket 16 WAP 2023
Willam Albert Roberts was convicted by a jury of two counts of failing to comply with the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9799.51-9799.75, and sentenced to five to ten years’ incarceration. Superior Court summarized the factual background as follows:
On January 25, 2006, Roberts became a sexual-offender registrant due to a conviction in a previous proceeding. See N.T., 3/7/2022, at 15-16. The trial court classified him as a Tier III Offender under the existent registration statute. See id. at 16. Thus, Roberts became obligated to report annually to the Pennsylvania State Police for “the remainder of his lifetime.” Id. According to the SORNA records that the State Police maintain in a statewide database, Roberts failed to appear for his annual reporting obligation in 2020 and also failed to report a change in his residence. See id. at 20, 33.
Slip op. at 1-2. Roberts appealed to Superior Court, arguing that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Roberts “knowingly” failed to register based on Roberts’ testimony that his failure to register was because he understood he would only need to register every ten years following his conviction.
Finding “the registrant’s reason for failing to report or to verify is irrelevant to the mens rea analysis, where, as here, the registrant knew he failed to report or to verify,” Superior Court affirmed Roberts sentence, concluding that:
Even if Roberts believed his registration requirement expired after ten years, he still knew that he failed to report his change of address when he did not re-register in 2020. He also knew that he failed to verify his address and appear to be photographed by his anniversary date in 2020. Therefore, Roberts knowingly failed to comply with SORNA and violated 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4915.2(a)(1),(2).
Simply put, there is no notice requirement in SORNA. The statute expressly negates and disclaims such a requirement. “Neither failure on the part of the Pennsylvania State Police to send nor failure of a sexually violent predator or [sexual] offender to receive notice [of the registration requirement] or information under subsection (a.1), (b.1) or (b.3) shall relieve that predator or offender from the [registration/re-registration] requirements of this subchapter.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9799.60(f).
Essentially, the General Assembly, when enacting SORNA, codified the ancient maxim that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Commonwealth v. Kratsas, 564 Pa. 36, 764 A.2d 20, 30 (2001). Roberts may not excuse noncompliance with SORNA based on alleged ignorance of his lifetime-registration obligation. His second and last appellate issue warrants no relief.
Slip op. at 9.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur to consider the following issue:
Is the evidence insufficient to convict a person for failure to register under SORNA when the Commonwealth fails to prove that the defendant knew of and was [non-compliant] with his registration obligations, or as the Superior Court held, the Commonwealth need only prove that the person knew he did not register, even if he had no knowledge that he was required to do so?
For more information, contact Kevin McKeon or Dennis Whitaker.