Imo Registrant N.B. (073613), 117 A.3d 1196

N.B., age 19, was indicted in 2011 for aggravated sexual assault, sexual assaults, and endangering the welfare of a child for acts with his minor half-sister living in the same household.
N.B. pled guilty to one count of sexual assault by sexual contact with a child under 13, admitting to multiple acts with the half-sister.
The trial court designated N.B. as a Tier 2 offender under Megan’s Law and considered household/incest protections to internet publication eligibility.
The trial court held N.B. did not qualify for the household/incest exception (N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(d)(2)) and ordered Megan’s Law internet registry access.
An appellate panel affirmed the decision denying the household/incest exception, and the Supreme Court granted certification to resolve statutory interpretation.
The Court held the 2004 amendment defining “sole sex offense” clarifies the household/incest exception, applying it to N.B. and remanded for public-access determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the household/incest exception apply to a single conviction with multiple acts against a relative?	N.B. argues the exception can apply where a single conviction covers multiple acts.	State contends no exception if more than one offense occurred against the same victim.	Yes; household/incest applies to a single conviction with multiple acts within a household.
What is the interpretive effect of the 2004 amendment defining “sole sex offense” on N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(d)(2)?	N.B. asserts the amendment clarifies the scope of the exception.	State argues the amendment does not broaden the exception beyond a single offense.	Amendment clarifies that the household/incest exception can apply when a single conviction meets 2C:7-13(d)(2) and involves a single household.
If the household/incest exception applies, may the record still be released publicly under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(e)?	N.B. may be shielded from public internet exposure.	State may seek public access under 2C:7-13(e) if pattern or risk criteria are shown.	Remand to determine under 2C:7-13(e) whether public release is warranted.

State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161 (2010) (statutory interpretation and deference to RRAS in Megan’s Law context)
In re Civil Commitment of J.M.B., 197 N.J. 563 (2009) (interpretation principles for statutory text; give meaning to all words)
State v. Lenihan, 219 N.J. 251 (2014) (goal of interpreting statutes to ascertain legislative intent)
State v. Shelley, 205 N.J. 320 (2011) (plain-language approach to statutory interpretation)
State v. Williams, 218 N.J. 576 (2014) (interpretive framework for statutory text and extrinsic aids)
Bolvito, 217 N.J. 221 (2014) (analysis of statutory text and legislative history for Megan’s Law)