Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1/14/2002

State v. Walls

Citations

558 S.E.2d 524
348 S.C. 26
2002 S.C. LEXIS 2

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

recognizing that while both the United States and South Carolina Constitutions specifically prohibit ex post facto laws, two critical elements must be present for a law to fall within the prohibition: (1
holding sex offender registration non-punitive in purpose or effect and determining that sex offender registration did not constitute a criminal penalty
recognizing that while both the United States and South Carolina Constitutions specifically prohibit ex post facto laws, two critical elements must be present for a law to fall within the prohibition: (1) the law must apply to events that occurred before its enactment; and (2
holding the sex offender registry was intended to protect the public from sex offenders who may re-offend and to aid law enforcement, not to punish offenders
holding the General Assembly's intent in enacting SORA was \to protect the public from those sex offenders who may re-offend and to aid law enforcement in solving sex crimes\
upholding the state law requirement for convicted sex offenders to register with local officials

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moore, Toal, Waller, Burnett, Pleicones

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.