In Hinson v. State, the court of appeals held that in a trial for failure to register as a sex offender charge, it is not plain error to tell the jury the charge involves registration as a sex offender. While issuing a citation during a traffic stop, Alaska State Trooper Joel Miner asked Hinson for his address. Hinson provided Miner with his home address for the citation and told Miner he was a registered sex offender. When Miner ran Hinson’s information through the Alaska Public Safety Information Network, he discovered that his address did not match the one Hinson reported to the sex offender registry. Hinson was charged with felony failure to register as a sex offender for failing to notify the registry of his change of address. The superior court considered whether it should alter the charge so that the jury only heard Hinson had been charged with “failure to register” and not “failure to register as a sex offender,” but decided not to. The court of appeals affirmed the superior court’s decision, reasoning that attempting to disguise the charge would only lead to juror speculation and engender distrust of the legal process. The court of appeals further reasoned that it was necessary for the jurors to understand the specific nature of Hinson’s duty to register to evaluate the element of intent, because a duty to update a sex offender registry as opposed to, for example, a duty to inform the Department of Motor Vehicles of a change of address may affect jurors’ evaluation of Hinson’s intent. Affirming the superior court’s decision, the court of appeals held that in a trial for failure to register as a sex offender, it is not plain error to tell the jury the charge involves registration as a sex offender.