Appeal No. 117,081: State of Kansas v. Amy Stoll
Summary calendar; no oral argument
Stoll was convicted in Reno County District Court for failing to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act when she neglected to report her new address within three days of moving. Stoll argued she was not guilty because she had substantially complied with the registration requirements by correctly registering for seven years and registering her new address only a few weeks late. In a per curium opinion, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding registration requires strict compliance. The Supreme Court was not persuaded by Stoll's arguments the unavailability of a substantial compliance defense and the strict liability nature of the offense violated her due process rights. Stoll argued there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction because she had erroneously been ordered to register at the time of her original crime. The court rejected this argument because, by the time Stoll failed to register, the Legislature had added Stoll's crime to the list of those requiring registration and indicated the requirement applied retroactively. The Supreme Court held retroactive application did not violate the ex post facto clause because registration requirements are not punitive. Justice Eric Rosen dissented. He considered the registration requirements punitive and, consequently, their retroactive application to Stoll a violation of the ex post facto clause. He would have held there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction because Stoll was under no duty to register.