Mendoza-Martinez factors in North Carolina

2009To determine whether a statute is penal or regulatory in character, a court examines the following seven factors, known as the Mendoza-Martinez factors: Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, whether it has historically been regarded as punishment, whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence, whether *30 the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and wh

2009To determine whether a statute is penal or regulatory in character, a court examines the following seven factors, known as the Mendoza-Martinez factors: Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, whether it has historically been regarded as punishment, whether it comes into play only on a finding of scienter, whether its operation will promote the traditional aims of punishment—retribution and deterrence, whether *30 the behavior to which it applies is already a crime, whether an alternative purpose to which it may rationally be connected is assignable for it, and wh

2010As the Court in Smith similarly recognized, two of the factors carry “little weight” in this context because SBM applies only to certain offenders based on their past conduct, not to their current behavior. 3 See id. at 105; Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998, 1004, 1007 (6th Cir. 2007) (relying on Smith and noting that the two Mendoza-Martinez factors referenced above “were not particularly germane” when testing sex offender registration and SBM statutes for ex post facto concerns), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 129 S. Ct. 287 (2008).

2010As the Court in Smith similarly recognized, two of the factors carry "little weight" in this context because SBM applies only to certain offenders based on their past conduct, not to their current behavior. [3] See id. at 105 , 123 S.Ct. 1140 ; Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998, 1004, 1007 (6th Cir.2007) (relying on Smith and noting that the two Mendoza-Martinez factors referenced above "were not particularly germane" when testing sex offender registration and SBM statutes for ex post facto concerns), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 287 , 172 L.Ed.2d 210 (2008).

2010In those cases, as Hendricks , the Supreme Court evaluated *18 each factor individually—noting, for example, that the civil commitment scheme in Hendricks " does involve an affirmative restraint, " 521 U.S. at 363 , 117 S.Ct. at 2083 , 138 L.Ed.2d at 516 (emphasis added)—but nevertheless concluded that the factors taken together did not transform a regulatory scheme into a punitive one. [11] The balance of the Mendoza-Martinez factors should guide courts in determining if a statute's effects are punitive in spite of its stated regulatory intent.

2010In those cases, as Hendricks , the Supreme Court evaluated *18 each factor individually—noting, for example, that the civil commitment scheme in Hendricks " does involve an affirmative restraint, " 521 U.S. at 363 , 117 S.Ct. at 2083 , 138 L.Ed.2d at 516 (emphasis added)—but nevertheless concluded that the factors taken together did not transform a regulatory scheme into a punitive one. [11] The balance of the Mendoza-Martinez factors should guide courts in determining if a statute's effects are punitive in spite of its stated regulatory intent.