## Facts

- Roy Eugene Bryant had a prior South Carolina sex-offense conviction and served an active sentence there.
- While in South Carolina custody, Bryant received notice that he had a lifelong duty to register as a sex offender in South Carolina and to notify officials within 10 days of an address change or an out-of-state move.
- After release, Bryant registered in South Carolina and later moved to Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
- Bryant did not register as a sex offender in North Carolina and did not notify South Carolina authorities of his relocation.
- Bryant was arrested in North Carolina for failing to register and was later indicted for failure to register under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11 and for habitual felon status.
- A jury convicted Bryant of failure to register and of being an habitual felon.
- The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the statute was unconstitutional as applied due to lack of notice of the North Carolina duty to register.

## Issues

1. Whether N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-208.11 violates due process on its face by criminalizing failure to register without requiring proof of actual notice of the statute.
2. Whether applying § 14-208.11 to an out-of-state sex offender who moved to North Carolina without registering violates due process under the notice principles associated with *Lambert v. California*.

## Decision

- The North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
- The Court held § 14-208.11 is facially constitutional.
- The Court held the statute was constitutional as applied to Bryant because his circumstances provided constitutionally sufficient notice to trigger a duty to inquire about registration requirements upon relocating.
- Bryant’s convictions for failure to register and for habitual felon status were reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- Due process generally does not require the State to prove a defendant’s actual knowledge of a criminal statute; ignorance of the law is ordinarily no defense.
- *Lambert v. California* is a narrow exception requiring notice when liability is based on wholly passive conduct and there are no circumstances that would prompt a reasonable person to inquire about a legal duty.
- A convicted sex offender who has received prior registration notice in another state and relocates interstate may be charged with failure to register without proof of actual notice of the destination state’s statute when surrounding facts would lead a reasonable person to inquire.
- A registration statute is not facially invalid on notice grounds where the statutory scheme provides for notification to offenders in the ordinary in-state release context.

## Conclusion

The court held that North Carolina’s failure-to-register statute did not offend due process either facially or as applied, because Bryant’s prior registration obligations and other surrounding circumstances supplied sufficient notice to require him to investigate and comply with North Carolina’s registration requirements.


State v. Bryant, 359 N.C. 554, 614 S.E.2d 479 (N.C. 2005)