35 N.E.3d 788
Mass. App. Ct.2015Background
- Doe, convicted in 2011 for indecent assault; SORB designated him a level three sex offender after a de novo hearing.
- De novo hearing relied on documentary evidence, including disciplinary-history records and a police report describing acquitted allegations.
- Examiner found the disciplinary history reliable and probative and rejected Doe's age as a mitigating factor.
- Disciplinary records described 1992 touching of a female officer and 2000 exposing himself to a female officer; these details appeared in classification records rather than in the reports themselves.
- Police report from 1999 described a detailed assault claim; Doe was acquitted criminally, yet examiner treated the police narrative as probative of repetitive sexual misconduct.
- Standard of review requires substantial evidence; hearsay at classification hearings may be admitted if reliable, with the examiner assessing reliability and limiting use to relevant factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of disciplinary history in classification records | Doe argues multilevel hearsay with no corroboration | Exhibits are reliable and properly credit[d] for repetitive behavior | Properly admitted and credited |
| Use of police report of acquitted conduct as evidence | Report should not constitute substantial evidence | Narrative is detailed, plausible, and corroborated by other evidence | Admissible and considered Re: repetitive conduct |
| Denial of expert funds for mitigating age factor | Age 49 should warrant expert financial support | Requests lacked specificity linking age to need for experts; not constitutionally required | Affirmed denial of expert funds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Holmgren, 421 Mass. 224 (1995) (distinguishes proof standards at criminal vs. classification hearings)
- Soe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 466 Mass. 381 (2013) (acquittal does not render evidence inadmissible; examiner may consider underlying conduct)
- Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., No. 10304, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 309 (2007) (multilevel hearsay admissible; framework for review of classification decisions)
- Doe v. 10800, No. 10800, 459 Mass. 603 (2011) (admission of related police reports despite lack of conviction allowed under certain conditions)
- Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., No. 89230, 452 Mass. 764 (2008) (limiting use of CWOF and related conduct in classification factors)