4 N.E.3d 1264
Mass. App. Ct.2014Background
- Doe was classified as a level three sex offender in Massachusetts based on a Maine conviction for unlawful sexual conduct; SORB remanded to consider age-related risk factors and expert funds.
- SORB’s remand included consideration of extensive scientific studies showing age affects recidivism, especially for older offenders, and potential need for expert testimony.
- A remand hearing examiner on remand denied Doe’s request for $5,000 for an expert psychologist/psychiatrist and conducted an unguided review of studies.
- Doe previously had a history including prior fraud convictions and probation violations; he lived in a homeless shelter with mixed health and stability indicators.
- The trial court affirmed the classification; the Supreme Judicial Court vacated and remanded for proper consideration of age as a factor and potential expert funds.
- Doe No. 205614 (2013) later held that SORB must use up-to-date risk factors, consider gender, and may need expert funds to assess nonstandard characteristics; this guided the instant case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Doe validly sought expert funding on remand | Doe seeks funds to address age-related risk assessment. | SORB did not require expert input; studies insufficiently conclusive. | Yes; denial was an abuse of discretion and remand for reconsideration. |
| Whether age must be treated as a risk factor in classification hewing to Doe No. 151564 and later Doe No. 205614 | Age significantly affects recidivism, warranted expert evaluation. | Age effects are inconclusive and not uniformly applicable to this case. | Age must be considered with appropriate evidence; reliance on unguided review was flawed. |
| Whether the hearing examiner’s approach on remand violated proper standards for evaluating scientific studies | Examiner should interpret and apply studies with assistance from experts. | Examiner could rely on her own review; expert input not mandatory. | Abuse of discretion; examiner must consider expert testimony where complex literature is involved. |
| Whether Doe’s case required consideration of gender-linked risk factors as in Doe No. 205614 | Gendered differences affect risk assessment and require examination. | Gender considerations are not triggered here; evidence focused on age. | Relevant but not exclusive; the court emphasized applying up-to-date risk factors, including age. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 151564 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 612 (Mass. 2010) (remand to consider age and evidence; expert funds issues)
- Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 89230 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 452 Mass. 764 (Mass. 2008) (expert funds available when needed for assessment)
- Doe No. 205614 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 466 Mass. 594 (Mass. 2013) (gender and age factors; need for sound risk-classification decisions)
- Doe No. 136652 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 81 Mass. App. Ct. 639 (Mass. App. Ct. 2012) (application of risk-factor guidelines to individuals)