Commonwealth v. Bell, 981 N.E.2d 220

Defendant was convicted after a jury-waived trial of failing to register as a sex offender under G. L. c. 6, § 178H(a).
Defendant stipulated to Nevada 1985 conviction for attempted child sexual assault and to not being registered in Massachusetts in 2004.
Defendant’s former wife identified him and authenticated his signatures on multiple Nevada and Texas sex offender registration forms.
Forms were admitted over objections based on relevance and confrontation; wife testified to signature familiarity and Internet-enabled meeting.
Massachusetts’ registration scheme requires like-violation analysis to determine if out-of-state conviction qualifies; the trial judge denied a required finding of not guilty, and the jury-waived trial proceeded.
On appeal, the Commonwealth’s sufficiency theory and confrontation-clause challenge were reviewed; the court affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports all elements of failure to register	Commonwealth contends the Nevada/Texas registrations plus MA residency prove all elements.	Defendant argues insufficiency, including lack of a like violation and lack of knowledge.	No; the court held sufficient evidence supports elements including like-violation and knowledge.
Whether Nevada-Texas registrations constitute a like violation under G. L. c. 6, § 178C	Commonwealth argues like-violation standard met because elements are same or nearly the same as MA offenses.	Defendant asserts MA does not recognize such Nevada attempt as a like violation.	Yes; the like-violation standard was satisfied for this case.
Whether the defendant knowingly failed to register in Massachusetts	Commonwealth contends the evidence shows he knew to register due to prior Nevada/Texas registrations and statements on forms.	Defendant contends insufficient evidence of knowledge.	Yes; the evidence supported knowledge of Massachusetts duty.
Whether admission of the Texas registry document violated confrontation	Commonwealth asserts records are non-testimonial and fall within business records exception.	Defendant argues confrontation rights were violated by admission of out-of-court Texas record.	No; Texas document was non-testimonial business-record-like and admissible.

Doe No. 151564 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 612 (2010) (like violation analysis for out-of-state convictions governs registration)
Commonwealth v. Becker, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 81 (2008) (like violation framework for registration; elements comparison)
Commonwealth v. Bell, 455 Mass. 408 (2009) (present opportunity and proximity standards for attempt)
Commonwealth v. Ortiz, 408 Mass. 463 (1990) (intent and overt act required for attempt)
Commonwealth v. Peaslee, 177 Mass. 267 (1901) (early articulation of proximity approach for attempt)
Commonwealth v. Hamel, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 250 (2001) (Massachusetts approach to attempt and element weighing)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency review standard: rational trier of fact)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (business-records/traditionally non-testimonial certificates)