L.L., a juvenile v. Commonwealth, 470 Mass. 169

Background

Juvenile (age 16) admitted to sufficient facts for two counts of indecent assault and battery on persons 14 or older after pulling down two adult women's pants in public within eight days; he admitted the acts and to marijuana use before one incident.
Juvenile sought relief from sex‑offender registration under G. L. c. 6, § 178E(f) after plea but before final disposition; evidentiary hearing held with expert testimony.
Forensic psychologist Dr. Barbara Quiñones administered the ERASOR tool and testified the juvenile’s sexual recidivism risk was low and recommended exemption from registration.
Juvenile Court judge found the offenses "egregious," discounted parts of the expert opinion (including lack of sexual deviance finding), concluded the juvenile posed a risk of reoffense, and denied relief from registration.
Juvenile petitioned for review under G. L. c. 211, § 3; single justice stayed registration decision and reported the matter to the SJC.
SJC considered appropriate standard and process for § 178E(f) determinations for juveniles and affirmed the denial of relief.

Issues

Issue	Juvenile's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
What standard must a judge apply under § 178E(f) to determine "risk of reoffense" for juveniles?	"Risk of reoffense" must be an articulated, objective, "likely to reoffend" standard and consider factors like seriousness, certainty of harm, and intervention prospects.	No textual basis for a "likely" standard; judge's § 178E(f) determination is discretionary and not part of the Board's registration decision.	The court rejects a "likely" (near‑certainty) standard; defines the required risk level as lower than the Board's statutory "low" classification and more than zero risk.
What evidentiary basis should the judge use in assessing risk under § 178E(f)?	(Juvenile) Judges must use objective, research‑based factors and give weight to expert risk assessments.	(Commonwealth) Judge may rely on offense circumstances and criminal history; not bound by experts.	Judges should consider expert evidence when offered and may use the risk factors in G. L. c. 6, § 178K(1) and board regulations; judges need not follow them mechanistically but should give reasoned consideration.
Must judges make written findings when denying relief under § 178E(f)?	Judge must articulate clear, objective findings on the record, especially when rejecting expert testimony.	Legislature did not require written findings in § 178E(f); board has that requirement under § 178K(2)(d).	No statutory duty to make written findings, but judge should explain on the record the reasons for the decision with sufficient specificity.
Did the judge here abuse discretion by rejecting the expert and denying relief?	The juvenile contends the judge improperly disregarded uncontested expert evidence and failed to adequately explain rejection.	The judge credited and reasonably discounted portions of the expert’s opinion based on offense facts.	No abuse of discretion: judge considered the expert, explained the basis for discounting parts of the opinion, and reasonably concluded risk warranted registration.

Key Cases Cited

Commonwealth v. Ronald R., 450 Mass. 262 (addressing § 178E(f) discretion and burden on juvenile to show no risk)
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 450 Mass. 780 (discussing stigma and consequences of registration)
Commonwealth v. DeMinico, 408 Mass. 230 (trier of fact may accept or reject expert testimony)
Commonwealth v. O'Brien, 423 Mass. 841 (same principle on expert evidence)
Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (articulating limits of overly deferential "no conscientious judge" abuse‑of‑discretion formulation)
Adoption of Mariano, 77 Mass. App. Ct. 656 (abuse of discretion review as decision outside reasonable alternatives)