Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 3839 v. Sex Offender Registry Board, 472 Mass. 492

Background

Doe was adjudicated a delinquent juvenile for sex offenses committed at ages 14–15 (1989–1990), served in DYS, and later was civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person (SDP) to the Treatment Center until discharged in Sept. 2013.
SORB initiated classification proceedings and, after an evidentiary hearing in July 2010 (while Doe remained confined), a hearing examiner in Jan. 2011 finally classified Doe as a Level 3 sex offender, requiring registration.
Doe challenged the registration/classification as an unconstitutional retroactive/punitive application of the registration statute (G. L. c. 6, §§ 178C–178Q), and also argued the Level 3 classification lacked substantial evidence (failure to properly account for youth, factual errors, and stale evidence).
The trial judge and SJC reviewed whether the registration requirement attached new legal consequences to pre‑statute juvenile adjudications, whether the hearing considered youth and other factors, and whether the classification was stale by the time of Doe’s 2013 release.
The SJC held that the statute did not operate retroactively as applied because juvenile adjudications made Doe eligible for potential registration but SORB’s decision required a current assessment of dangerousness; the court found some asserted factual errors immaterial or supported by the record.
The SJC concluded the classification was stale because the final classification was based on evidence more than three years before Doe’s discharge; remanded for a new evidentiary hearing for SORB to prove current risk.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactivity / Ex post facto & double jeopardy	Registration here rests solely on juvenile adjudications predating the statute and thus imposes new legal consequences	Doe’s juvenile adjudications only made him eligible; SORB’s decision depended on a current danger/risk assessment, so no retroactive effect	No retroactive application; statute applied prospectively because final registration required current assessment of risk
Substantial evidence — effect of youth / scientific evidence	Hearing failed to consider recent research showing juvenile sex offenders have lower recidivism; regulations treat juvenile offense as aggravating	SORB notes hearing applied existing regulatory factors and Doe did not proffer studies or expert testimony at the hearing	No reversible error: because Doe did not present contemporary studies at the hearing, the examiner was not required to consider them; Doe may present new evidence at rehearing
Alleged factual errors in examiner’s findings	Examiner misstated number of rape admissions and relied on unreliable substance‑abuse evidence	Errors are minor/mischaracterizations; record supports findings on substance history and offenses	Minor misstatements were de minimis or supported by record; findings stand
Staleness / premature classification	Classification based on 2010 hearing became materially outdated by Doe’s 2013 discharge and thus is presumptively stale	SORB relied on 2010 evidence and hearing to set risk level	Classification was stale; remand for new evidentiary hearing where SORB must prove current risk of reoffense and dangerousness

Key Cases Cited

Roe v. Attorney Gen., 434 Mass. 418 (discussing SORB registration obligations)
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 450 Mass. 780 (clarifying when registration is retroactive vs. prospective)
Commonwealth v. Bruno, 432 Mass. 489 (SDP/civil commitment relies on current mental condition; not retroactive when conviction only shows eligibility)
Diatchenko v. District Attorney for the Suffolk Dist., 466 Mass. 655 (recognizing mitigating qualities of youth in sentencing/assessment)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (youth has mitigating characteristics relevant to punishment and assessment)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (test for whether a law has retroactive effect)