State of North Dakota, and v. James A. Burr, and

Summary

The court held that retroactively applying North Dakota's sex-offender registration requirement to Burr did not violate either ex post facto clause because the requirement was regulatory rather than punitive and imposed only a collateral consequence of his prior conviction. The court also held that Burr's conditional guilty plea preserved only his challenge to the registration requirement; any challenge to dissemination provisions was waived. The judgment was affirmed, and the court expressly overruled the inconsistent portion of an earlier plurality decision. Kapsner, dissenting, would have held that the retroactive registration and notification provisions imposed excessive punishment in violation of both ex post facto clauses.