Soe v. Sex Offender Registry Board, 466 Mass. 381

Background

Plaintiff pleaded guilty (June 17, 2009) to four counts of indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen and was required to register as a sex offender; while awaiting trial on separate charges that he sexually assaulted his then-11-year-old stepdaughter, the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB or board) preliminarily classified him as Level 3 and scheduled a final classification hearing.
Plaintiff moved to continue the board hearing until the pending criminal trial against him (stepdaughter charges) was resolved, arguing he could not testify or fully challenge the untried allegations without risking self-incrimination or compromising his criminal defense.
The board denied the continuance, admitted police reports summarizing the stepdaughter’s allegations and other investigative evidence, and the plaintiff (on counsel’s advice) declined to testify at the classification hearing.
The hearing examiner found by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff presented a high risk to reoffend and finalized Level 3 classification, relying both on the admitted untried-allegation reports and on the separate conviction for assaults on a 16‑year‑old.
Nearly one year later a Superior Court jury acquitted the plaintiff of the stepdaughter sexual-assault charges (convicted only of open and gross lewdness). Plaintiff sought review in Superior Court, which affirmed the board; he appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance of classification hearing while related criminal charges pending	Continuance required because plaintiff would be forced to choose between testifying at the board (risking self-incrimination and revealing defense strategy) or remaining silent and losing chance to contest untried allegations	Board may proceed; no constitutional right to stay administrative/civil proceedings pending criminal trial; board must balance public safety and accuracy concerns	Court: No due‑process violation; board must perform a particularized balancing but denial here was not abuse of discretion given public safety interest and uncertain criminal schedule
Use of untried criminal allegations at classification and impact of later acquittal	Acquittal shows the allegations were baseless and public policy requires board reconsider classification	An acquittal means Commonwealth failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it does not by itself show the board’s preponderance‑based finding was erroneous	Court: Acquittal alone is insufficient to require reopening; board may reconsider only if it substantially relied on evidence later affirmatively shown to be false or unreliable, and such reconsideration is within board’s inherent discretion
Authority/process for reclassification after final classification based on later‑discredited evidence	Plaintiff sought clarification whether board must reopen when relied on later‑discredited evidence	Board contended reclassification rules govern, but regulations impose time and new‑information bars that do not address false evidence later revealed	Court: Board has inherent authority to reopen or reconsider to prevent a miscarriage of justice when evidence the board substantially relied upon is later demonstrated false; motion may be brought to board (or board may act sua sponte), reviewable for abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (civil proceedings may go forward despite related criminal charges; stay requires case‑specific balancing)
Gabrilowitz v. Newman, 582 F.2d 100 (1st Cir. 1978) (no general constitutional right to stay civil proceedings pending criminal prosecution)
Rubera v. Commonwealth, 371 Mass. 177 (Mass. 1976) (criminal prosecution does not automatically preclude related administrative/probation proceedings)
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 452 Mass. 764 (Mass. 2008) (hearing examiner may consider misconduct underlying untried charges for repetitive/compulsive behavior under preponderance standard)
Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 428 Mass. 90 (Mass. 1998) (classification uses preponderance of the evidence and requires detailed findings)
Box Pond Ass’n v. Energy Facilities Siting Bd., 435 Mass. 408 (Mass. 2001) (agency refusal to reopen a proceeding reviewed only for abuse of discretion)