Commonwealth v. Dalton
467 Mass. 555
| Mass. | 2014Background
- Defendant convicted by trial of statutory rape of a fourteen-year-old; sentenced to probation for six years with special conditions.
- Under G. L. c. 6, § 178E(f), a court may relieve a non-immediate-confinement sex offender from registering if the offense circumstances and offender history indicate no risk, except when the offense involves a child, in which case relief is barred.
- Defendant was convicted of a sex offense involving a child, triggering the § 178E(f) prohibition on relief from registration.
- A judge granted relief from registration, determining discretion should apply; Commonwealth challenged, seeking review by the single justice.
- The issue presented is whether the word 'may' in § 178E(f) permits relief or whether 'may not' prohibits relief in child-sex-offense cases; court holds the latter and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §178E(f) prohibit relief from registration when offense involves a child? | Commonwealth argues relief is barred by the child-offense prohibition. | Gants contends discretion exists because 'may' but not 'shall' governs relief; the child offense should not bar relief in all cases. | Statute prohibits relief where offense involves a child. |
| Are 'may' and 'may not' distinctionally different in this statute for discretion? | Commonwealth asserts no discretionary relief where child offenses are involved; statute unambiguous. | Gants argues 'may' and 'may not' reflect limited discretionary scope, allowing relief in some contexts absent child offense. | No meaningful distinction; 'may not' is mandatory and forbids discretion in child-offense cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Boe, 456 Mass. 337 (2010) (plain-language interpretation governs criminal penalties and registration law)
- Commonwealth v. Ventura, 465 Mass. 202 (2013) (rules of lenity applied to ambiguous registration provisions)
- Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 151564 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 612 (2010) (ambiguities resolved against Commonwealth in registration context)
- Commonwealth v. Wotan, 422 Mass. 740 (1996) (ambiguity resolve in favor of defendant where statute plausibly ambiguous)
- Roe v. Attorney Gen., 434 Mass. 418 (2001) (exceptions to registration do not apply to child or sexually violent offenses)
- Edwards, petitioner, 464 Mass. 454 (2013) (may not reduce certain rates absent statutory authorization)
- Commonwealth v. Tim T., 437 Mass. 592 (2002) (judge may not impose probation terms beyond statutory scope)
- Commonwealth v. Domino, 465 Mass. 569 (2013) (statutory foreclosures from relief when prior child rape convictions)
- Greenfield v. Greenfield Educ. Ass'n, 385 Mass. 70 (1982) (word 'may' conveys authorization; not mandatory directive in all contexts)