People v. Lymon

1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. CORA LADANE LYMON, also known as COREY LYMON, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

No. SC 164685

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 29, 2024

Syllabus

Argued January 11, 2024

Cora Lymon was convicted by a jury in the Wayne Circuit Court of three counts of torture, MCL 750.85; three counts of unlawful imprisonment, MCL 750.349b; one count of felonious assault MCL 750.82; and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b Defendant held his wife and their two children at gunpoint in the family's home for hours, threatening to kill them and burn down their house. The court, Dana M. Hathaway, J. sentenced defendant to 126 to 240 months' imprisonment for the torture convictions, 84 to 180 months' imprisonment for the unlawful-imprisonment convictions, 24 to 48 months' imprisonment for the felonious-assault conviction, and two years' imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction, to be served consecutively with the other sentences. Additionally, because two of defendant's unlawful-imprisonment convictions involved minors, defendant was placed on the sex-offender registry as a Tier I offender under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), MCL 28.721 et seq. Defendant appealed his convictions, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his torture convictions and that because his conviction of unlawful imprisonment of a minor lacked a sexual component, his placement on the sex-offender registry violated U.S. Const, Am VIII and Const 1963, art 1, § 16. Defendant's case was held in abeyance for several years pending the resolution of related cases in the Supreme Court. In 2022, the Court of Appeals, K. F. Kelly, P.J., and M. J. Kelly and Ronayne Krause, JJ., affirmed defendant's convictions but remanded the case for entry of an order removing defendant from the sex-offender registry, concluding that imposition of SORA, as amended by 2020 PA 295, effective March 24, 2021 (the 2021 SORA), for a crime that lacks a sexual component constituted cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16. 342 Mich.App. 46 (2022). Defendant sought leave to appeal his convictions in the Supreme Court, and the prosecution cross-appealed regarding the removal of defendant from SORA. The Supreme Court denied defendant's application but granted the prosecution's cross-application; the Supreme Court directed oral argument to address whether requiring a defendant to register as a sex offender for a non-sexual crime constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16 or cruel and unusual punishment under U.S. Const, Am VIII. 511 Mich. 860 (2023).

In an opinion by Chief Justice Clement, joined by Justices Bernstein, Cavanagh, Welch, and Bolden, the Supreme Court held:

Imposition of SORA, as amended by 2020 PA 295, on a non-sexual offender constitutes cruel or unusual punishment under Const 1963, art 1, § 16.

1. When the Michigan Legislature enacted SORA in 1994, the sex-offender registry was a confidential database, accessible only to law enforcement; the act required that persons convicted of certain sex offenses register and notify law enforcement of address changes. In the years since, the Legislature's repeated amendments of SORA transformed it into a publicly accessible registry that restricted registrants' movements and required registrants to regularly report various life details and changes to law enforcement in person. In 2021, People v Betts, 507 Mich. 527 (2021), held that the retroactive application of SORA, as amended by 2011 PA 17 and 2011 PA 18 (the 2011 SORA), imposed increased punishment on defendants, thus violating constitutional ex post facto protections. Although the Betts Court concluded that the Legislature had likely intended the 2011 SORA as a civil remedy rather than a criminal punishment, it further concluded that the statute was so punitive in effect that the 2011 SORA constituted criminal punishment despite that legislative intent. In assessing the punitive effects of the 2011 SORA, the Betts Court emphasized several particularly onerous facets of the 2011 SORA, including the student-safety zones that prohibited registrants from residing, living, loitering or working within 1,000 feet of a school; the immediate reporting requirements that forced registrants to report in person to law enforcement upon potentially frequent life changes; the calculation of reporting duration being based on an offender's conviction rather than an individualized assessment of the risk a particular offender posed to the community; and the publication of an offender's tier status on the public website. Before Betts was decided, the Legislature enacted the 2021 SORA, which implemented various ameliorative provisions, including removing the student-safety-zone prohibitions; no longer categorizing assignments under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, MCL 762.16 et seq., as registrable offenses; no longer categorizing expunged convictions as registrable offenses; removing registrants' tier classification from the public website; adding a requirement that the failure to register be a willful failure to comply; and providing that the Michigan State Police may create means other than in-person reporting by which registrants provide immediate information updates to law enforcement. However, the 2021 SORA also implemented other and potentially more-onerous changes, including requiring registrants to report to law enforcement all designations used for self-identification or routing in Internet communications or posting.

2. Const 1963, art 1, § 16 prohibits the state from inflicting cruel or unusual punishment. The first inquiry under that constitutional provision was whether the 2021 SORA constituted punishment. To determine whether a statute constitutes punishment, the court must first determine whether the Legislature intended the statute as a criminal punishment or a civil remedy. If the statute imposes a disability for the purpose of reprimanding the wrongdoer, the Legislature likely intended the statute as a criminal punishment. However, if the statute imposes a disability to further a legitimate governmental purpose, the Legislature likely intended the statute as a civil remedy. If the court determines that the Legislature intended the statute as criminal punishment, then the court must conclude that the statute is indeed punishment. However, if the court determines that the Legislature intended the statute as a civil remedy, the court must then consider whether the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the state's intention to deem it civil. The Legislature's intent will be rejected only when a party challenging the statute provides the clearest proof that the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the state's intention to deem it civil. In this case, the reasoning from Betts was adopted to conclude that the Legislature intended the 2021 SORA as a civil regulation; accordingly, the pertinent determination was whether the statutory scheme was so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the state's intention to deem it civil.

3. The seven factors outlined in Kennedy v Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963), guide courts in their consideration of the punitive purpose or effect of a statute. In the context of the constitutionality of sex-offender-registry statutes, the United States Supreme Court and the Michigan Supreme Court have identified the following five of these seven factors as having particular relevance: (1) whether the statute has historically been regarded as punishment; (2) whether the statute imposes an affirmative disability or restraint; (3) whether the statute promotes the traditional aims of punishment; (4) whether the statute has a rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose and (5) whether the statute is excessive with respect to its nonpunitive purpose. In this case, while sex-offender-registry laws are of relatively recent origin and so have no direct analogies to punishment in this nation's history and traditions, they may still resemble punishment. The 2021 SORA did not bear resemblance to the traditional punishment of banishment, but it did resemble the traditional punishments of parole and shaming; accordingly, this factor weighed in favor of finding that the 2021 SORA constituted punishment. The second factor also weighed toward a finding that the 2021 SORA constituted punishment because the 2021 SORA imposed significant obligations on registrants by requiring the immediate disclosure of extensive personal information, annual (or more-frequent) in-person visits to law enforcement, and the payment of fees; the 2021 SORA ensured compliance with these requirements through the potential for imprisonment. With regard to the third factor, the analysis in Betts was adopted in full; the purpose of the 2021 SORA was to deter future criminal sexual acts, and the 2021 SORA supported the traditional penological goal of retribution. The fourth factor asks only if the Legislature's decision is rational, not whether it is the most narrowly tailored decision or the most effective method to achieve the nonpunitive goal. Given that low bar, the inclusion of non-sexual offenses in SORA was rationally related to SORA's nonpunitive purpose of protecting the public against persons who pose a danger to the community. Finally, the restraints the 2021 SORA imposed on non-sexual offenders were excessive. The question was whether the 2021 SORA was a reasonable means of protecting the public from the commission of future criminal sexual acts by non-sexual offenders. SORA's efficacy in relation to sex offenders was...