Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 68549 v. Sex Offender Registry Board
470 Mass. 102
Mass.2014Background
- Doe No. 68549, a sex offender, pleaded guilty in 2003 for offenses committed as a juvenile (1986–1988) against his cousins.
- SORB classified Doe as level two in 2006; a Superior Court judge remanded for further proceedings after finding the decision not supported by substantial evidence.
- On remand, a successor examiner classified Doe as level one in 2010, a determination upheld by a different Superior Court judge; Doe appealed.
- The examiner considered factors under 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.40 and G. L. c. 6, § 178K, including age at offense, lack of recent reoffense, education and treatment, and risk-reducing factors.
- Evidence also included multiple factors indicating risk of reoffense (repetitive, escalating offenses; male and female victims; juvenile status) and factors mitigating risk (time since offense, rehabilitation).
- Judicial review of SORB classifications is under G. L. c. 30A, § 14, for substantial evidence and other statutory grounds; the court affirmed the judgment upholding level one classification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantial evidence supports level-one classification? | Doe argues the offenses occurred as a juvenile and evidence shows low risk. | Doe's classification relied on substantial evidence including age at offense and risk factors. | Yes; sufficient substantial evidence supports level one. |
| Consideration of juvenile status under guidelines? | Doe contends juvenile status requires different weighing. | Examiner applied appropriate juvenile-specific guidelines. | Yes; examiner properly considered juvenile status within applicable guidelines. |
| Guidelines outdated given adolescent brain research? | Doe argues advances in brain science render guidelines outdated. | Guidelines deprecated only if legally improper; updates not required here. | Guidelines may be outdated but did not render decision arbitrary or capricious. |
| Did examiner properly weigh evidence and not ignore relevant factors? | Doe argues examiner ignored evidence supporting lower risk. | Examiner did not ignore but weighed factors per guidelines. | Yes; decision supported by substantial evidence despite some differing expert views. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe No. 205614 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 466 Mass. 594 (2013) (guidelines must reflect current science; due process requires updated consideration of adolescent brain differences)
- Doe No. 151564 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 612 (2010) (guidelines must be updated as science evolves; juveniles require special consideration)
- Doe No. 10216 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 779 (2006) (review of SORB decisions; deference to agency expertise; use of guidelines in decision-making)
- Doe No. 10800 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 459 Mass. 603 (2011) (courts may defer to examiner's factual findings; expert testimony not always necessary for agency position)
- Doe No. 8725 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 450 Mass. 780 (2008) (age-related considerations in evaluating risk of reoffense)