Background
Henry Joseph Brewster III was charged with two counts of accosting a child for immoral purposes after giving two sex toys to a 14-year-old. He later pleaded no contest to aggravated assault.
The presentence investigation report described the sex toys and the victim’s age, and Brewster did not object to those facts. Based on that narrative, the trial court found that his offense was sexual in nature and ordered him to register under the Sex Offenders Registration Act’s catchall provision.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It explained that the catchall provision applies when a defendant is convicted of a state-law or municipal violation that, by its nature, constitutes a sexual offense against a person under 18. The only disputed issue was whether Brewster’s violation was sexual in nature.
The court held that this determination depends on the particular facts of the violation, not solely on the statutory elements of the conviction. Because Brewster pleaded no contest to aggravated assault arising from his giving sex toys to a 14-year-old, the trial court did not clearly err in finding that the intended purpose of the gift involved sexual conduct.
The court also rejected Brewster’s reliance on People v. Lymon, reasoning that his violation clearly had a sexual component and that Lymon did not hold registration under SORA’s catchall provision unconstitutional.
Key Takeaways
- A conviction for an offense without expressly sexual elements may still trigger SORA’s catchall provision.
- Courts assess the particular facts underlying the violation when deciding whether it was sexual in nature.
- Unchallenged facts in a presentence investigation report may support the registration determination.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that Michigan sentencing courts may look beyond the formal elements of a conviction when applying SORA’s catchall provision. A plea to a facially nonsexual offense therefore does not necessarily avoid registration when the underlying conduct was sexual and involved a minor.
It also underscores the importance of timely challenging factual assertions in the sentencing record, because those facts can determine whether SORA applies.