JOHN DOE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD No. 68549 vs. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD.
No. 68549
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk
November 5, 2014
470 Mass. 102 (2014)
GANTS, C.J., SPINA, CORDY, BOTSFORD, DUFFLY, LENK, & HINES, JJ.
Suffolk. September 3, 2014. - November 5, 2014.
This court concluded that substantial evidence supported the decision of a hearing examiner of the Sex Offender Registry Board classifying the plaintiff as a level one sex offender, where, although the examiner took account of various factors that tended to alleviate the concern the plaintiff would reoffend, his ruling was supported by evidence concerning multiple factors that tended to indicate the plaintiff‘s risk оf reoffense and degree of dangerousness. [109-111]
A hearing examiner of the Sex Offender Registry Board (board) did not err in declining to adopt the position advocated by the plaintiff‘s experts, in that the board was not statutorily required to present expert testimony in support of its position. [111-112]
A decision of a hearing examiner of the Sex Offender Registry Board (board) could not be deemed arbitrary or capricious on grounds that it failed to take into account reliable evidence that a factor relevant to the plaintiff affected the likelihood that the plaintiff would recidivate, i.e., the scientifically relevant factor that the plaintiff was an adolescent when he committed his offenses, where recent scientific studies (referred to in the report of one of the plaintiff‘s experts) were not relied on or offered into evidence before the board, and where the examiner took into consideration the plaintiff‘s young age at the time of his offenses. [112-114]
Although this court declined to consider, in a civil action seeking review of the plaintiff‘s classification as a level one sex offender by the Sex Offender Registry Board (board), the plaintiff‘s challenge to the validity of the board‘s guidelines, where the plaintiff did not argue below that scientific developments had rendered the guidelines invalid, and where the guidelines could not, in any event, have been challenged in an appeal from an administrative agency decision, this court observed that there was reason for some concern whether the guidelines (which were published in 2001) continued to reflect accurately the current state of scientific knowledge. [114-116]
CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on June 15, 2010.
The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review.
Francis J. DiMento (Dana Alan Curhan with him) for the рlaintiff.
Jennifer K. Zalnasky for the defendant.
Eric Tennen, for Youth Advocacy Division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
Robert E. McDonnell, Jeff Goldman, Nathaniel P. Bruhn, & Saia M. Smith, for American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
LENK, J. Over a three-year period ending in 1988, when he was sixteen years old, John Doe No. 68549 repeatedly subjected two of his cousins to sexual assaults, including rape. His victims came forward many years after the fact, and in October, 2003, when Doe was thirty-one years old, he pleaded guilty to a number of sex offenses committed when he was a juvenile.
In March, 2006, a hearing examiner of the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) determined that Doe posed a moderate risk of reoffense and a moderate degrеe of dangerousness, and classified Doe as a level two sex offender. A Superior Court judge, determining that this classification was not supported by substantial evidence, remanded for further proceedings. In May, 2010, a successor hearing examiner (successor examiner) concluded that Doe poses a low risk of reoffense and a low degree of dangerousness. Doe was therefore classified as a level one sex offender, a classification that was upheld by a different judge of the Superior Court. Doe appealed, and we granted his application for direct appellate review.
Doe cоntends that he should not be required to register as a sex offender. See
1. Statutory framework. In prior cases, we described in detail the tapestry of statutes and regulations that governs the registration requirement imposed on sex offenders. See, e.g., Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 205614 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 466 Mass. 594, 595-597 (2013) (Doe No. 205614); Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 151564 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 612, 614-615 (2010) (Doe No. 151564); Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 3844 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 768, 768-772 (2006) (Doe No. 3844). Here we reprise the essential elements of that scheme.
An individual is a “sex offender” if he or she has been convicted of one or more statutorily enumerated offenses.
SORB is required to consider a list оf statutory factors in making its classification determinations. See
As mandated by statute, SORB has promulgated “guidelines for determining the level of risk of reoffense and the degree of dangerousness posed to the public or for relief from the obligation to register.” See
“The registration and classification process is, essentially, a two stage process.” 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.38(3) (2013). First, SORB makes an initial “recommendation” concerning an offender‘s classification level. Id. See
SORB “may . . . relieve [a] sex offender of any further obligation to register” if the offender establishes that “the circum-
We have emphasized that the sex offender registration requirement “implicates constitutionally protected liberty and privacy interests.” See Doe No. 205614, 466 Mass. at 596, citing Doe v. Attorney Gen., 426 Mass. 136, 144 (1997). Accordingly, “careful and individualized due process is necessary to sort sexual predators likely to repeat their crimes from large numbers of offenders who pose no danger to the public.” Doe No. 205614, supra, citing Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 972 v. Sex Offender Rеgistry Bd., 428 Mass. 90, 105 (1998) (Marshall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
2. Facts. We recite the facts found by the successor examiner. These facts were relied upon by the Superior Court judge, and Doe does not dispute them.
Doe‘s cousins, a boy and a girl, emigrated from Ireland to the United States with their family. The cousins’ family was, at first, dependent on Doe‘s family. During the years from 1986 through 1988, Doe, then a teenager, engaged in repeated sexual assaults against his male cousin and in one sexual assault against his female cousin. At the end of this period, Doe and the female cousin were sixteen years old. The male cousin was two years younger.
Doe‘s assaults against the male cousin, which began when the cousin was elеven years old, escalated in violence over time, from masturbation to digital and then penile rape. Doe‘s assault against his female cousin occurred when they were both sixteen years old. On that occasion, the female cousin was swimming in Doe‘s family‘s swimming pool, when Doe swam over and raped her digitally.2
Doe‘s cousins first disclosed the sexual assaults in 2000, twelve years after the assaults had ceased. The cousins explained that
3. Classification proceedings. On March 1, 2005, SORB notified Doe that it was recommending that he be classified as a level two sex offender. Doe objected to this classification, and his matter was considered de novo by a SORB hearing examiner (original examiner). The original examiner held a hearing and heard testimony from two experts proffered by Doe, Dr. Bernard Katz and Dr. Barbara K. Schwartz. He also received from Doe an expert report of Dr. Joseph J. Plaud. On Mаrch 17, 2006, the original examiner ordered, as SORB had recommended, that Doe register as a level two offender.
Doe sought judicial review in the Superior Court. A Superior Court judge determined that the original examiner‘s classification decision was not supported by substantial evidence. He therefore entered judgment on the pleadings in Doe‘s favor, and remanded the matter to SORB.
On remand, two additional hearings were conducted by the successor examiner. The successor examiner took additional evidence, including an updated report and oral testimony from Schwartz, one of Doe‘s expert witnesses. The successor examiner made new, independent rulings and factual findings. Among other things, he excluded from the record a police report, which the original examiner had considered, describing a complaint against Doe by another woman, unrelated to Doe.
The successor examiner noted that Doe had been “a juvenile” and “an adolescent” when he committed his offenses. The examiner accepted the opinion of another of Doe‘s experts, Katz, that at the time of the offenses, Doe was “an unhappy, overweight and maladjusted teenager.” In his decision, the successor examiner also considered as risk reducing the faсts that Doe had not committed his offenses against strangers; had not reoffended since 1988; had enjoyed success in high school, in college, and in his work at a car dealership; was in a romantic relationship with an age-appropriate woman; had not abused alcohol in recent years; and had participated successfully in sex offender treatment.
On the other hand, the successor examiner found that Doe‘s sex offenses, which included “high contact” acts that had escalated “over a three-year period,” had been “repetitive and compulsive.” The successor examiner determined that there had been “a disparity between [Doe] and his [v]ictims as regards age, size, strength, economic status, and citizenship“; that Doe had been “controlling” and “hostile“; and that Doe had “victimized his male cousin in an escalating, repetitive and predatory pattern.” In addition, the successor examiner noted that when, as a twenty-eight year old, Doe was confronted by his aunt about his actions, he “wondered . . . how many times he needed to apologize” and then “told his aunt, ‘I never liked you or your family. You‘re weak and you‘re stupid. As a matter of fact, that made it all the more enjoyable.’ ” The successor examiner concluded that Doe presents “cognizable low risk of reoffense and a low degree of dangerousness,” and ordered Doe to register as a level one sex offender.
Doe again sought judicial review. This time, a different Superior Court judge affirmed the classification determination, stating that “[a]lthough . . . if considering the matter de novo, [the judge] might place more weight on the factors emphasized by Doe,” the successor examiner‘s decision nevertheless was supported by substantial evidence.
4. Standard of review. SORB‘s final classification of a sex offender is subject to judicial review under
A reviewing court will not disturb SORB‘s decision unless that decision was (a) in violation of constitutional provisions; (b) in excess of SORB‘s authority; (c) based upon an error of law; (d) made upon unlawful procedure; (e) unsupported by substantial
5. Analysis. a. Substantial evidence of Doe‘s dangerousness. Doe‘s primary argument is that the successor examiner‘s decision to classify him as a level one sex offender was not supported by substantial evidence, рarticularly since “the offenses he committed occurred while he was a juvenile more than twenty years ago.” In the circumstances, this argument is unavailing.
A decision of a SORB hearing examiner will not be upheld if it is “[u]nsupported by substantial evidence.”
A classification decision should not be based solely on the fact that an offender‘s underlying crime was sexual in nature. See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 24341 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 74 Mass. App. Ct. 383, 387 (2009), citing Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 8725 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 450 Mass. 780, 787, 790 (2008) (Doe No. 8725). A hearing examiner has discretion, however, to consider which statutory and regulatory factors are applicable and how much weight to ascribe to
As noted, the successor examiner took account of various factors that tended to alleviate the concern that Doe will reoffend. He considered, among other things, Doe‘s age at the time of the offenses; the fact that Doe knew his victims; Doe‘s subsequent educational, professional, and personal successes; and his completion of sex offender treatment. The successor examiner also considered, as required by the guidelines, “the length of time [that Doe] has had access to the community without committing any new offenses,” see 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.40(9)(a), finding that, “since 1988, [Doe] has not reoffended.” Cf. Doe No. 8725, 450 Mass. at 790.
Nonetheless, the successor examiner‘s ruling was supported by evidence concerning multiple factors that did tend to indicate Doe‘s dangerousness. Much of this evidence is set forth above, including the repetitive, protracted, escalating, and “high contact” nature of Doe‘s offenses. These are factors that, according to the guidelines, the successor examiner was required to consider. The guidelines state that offenders who “manifest their compulsive behavior by engaging in a continuing course of sexual misconduct involving separate incidents . . . present[] a greater risk to reoffend and . . . pos[e] an increased degree of dangerousness.” 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.40(2). See
The successor examiner also noted the following facts as indications, under the guidelines, of an increased risk of reoffense and degree of dangerousness: that Doe offended against both a male victim and a female victim, see 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.40(9)(c)(2), (9)(c)(11); that his victims were children, see 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.40(9)(c)(12); that he engaged in a variety of different offending behaviors, see 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.40(9)(c)(10); that he has, in the past, had difficulties with substance abuse, see 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.40(16) and
In sum, in the context of the record as a whole, the successor examiner‘s ruling was based on evidence that “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” that Doe poses a low risk of reoffense and a low degree of dangerousness.
b. Other issues concerning Doe‘s classification. We have noted previously that, in some cases, a SORB hearing examiner “might greatly benefit from testimony or a report by an appropriately trained and qualified mental health professional.” Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 89230 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 452 Mass. 764, 776 (2008). See Doe No. 151564, 456 Mass. at 623-624. Expert testimony is likely to be particularly valuable where a substantial period of time “has elapsed since the guidelines were last revised,” and where significant, relevant research has been conducted in the intervening period. See Doe No. 205614, 466 Mass. at 609.
In this case, the hearing examiner heard evidence concerning Doe‘s degree of dangerousness from three experts. One of these experts, Schwartz, presented an updated report and updated testimony on remand. The successor examiner considered this evidence and, in large part, found it cogent. For instance, he was persuaded by Katz‘s opinion that “the sex offenses were causally related to the fact that during the offending era, [Doe] was an
Ultimately, the successor examiner did not adopt the position advocated by Doe‘s experts, namely that Doe‘s risk of reoffense and his degree of dangerousness were less than “low.” The successor examiner‘s decision on this score was not erroneous. SORB is “not statutorily required to present expert testimony in support of its position before the examiner,” Doe No. 10216, 447 Mass. at 786, and “[t]he opinion of a witness testifying on behalf of a sex offender need not be accepted by the hearing examiner even where the board does not present any contrary expert testimony.” Doe No. 10800, 459 Mass. at 637, citing Doe No. 1211, 447 Mass. at 764. The successor examiner‘s reasons for reaching a conclusion not shared by Doe‘s experts were, as described above, supported by the evidence before him.
We have held also that a SORB classification decision will be deemed “arbitrary or capricious,”
Doe argues that the successor examiner in his case also ig-
Although the studies now cited by Doe were referred to briefly, and in general terms, in Schwartz‘s April, 2009, report, these studies were not relied upon or offered into evidence before SORB. Because our review is “confined to the record,” the successor examiner‘s failure to address evidence that was not presented to him would not be grounds for disturbing his decision.
Nonetheless, it would not have been proper for the successor examiner to disregard the fact that Doe was a youth when he offended, because the applicable statute and the guidelines require that this fact be considered.
As noted, the successor examiner took into consideration Doe‘s young age at the time of his offenses. Implicitly, he did so by applying only those factors that, according to the guidelines, appropriately are considered with regard to juvenile offenders. The successor examiner also specifically applied the factor concerning an offender‘s relationship with his victims in the manner that the guidelines deem аppropriate for juvenile offenders.
c. Validity of the guidelines. Doe asserts that the factors and presumptiоns incorporated in the guidelines are “out of date,” in that they were developed prior to recent studies concerning the differences between adolescents and adults.6 In none of the proceedings below did Doe argue that these scientific developments render the guidelines invalid. Nor would such a request have been proper at the current juncture. A challenge to the validity of a general regulation “cannot be resolved by requesting declaratory relief in an appeal from an administrative agency decision because judicial review is confined to the administrative record.” Doe No. 10800, 459 Mass. at 630, citing
As noted, the guidelines “must be accorded all the deference due to a statute” (citation omitted). Doe No. 205614, 466 Mass. at 602. “A party challenging the validity of a regulation must prove in a judicial proceeding ‘that the regulation is illegal, arbitrary, or capricious.’ ” Doe No. 10800, 459 Mass. at 629, quoting Borden, Inc. v. Commissioner of Pub. Health, 388 Mass. 707, 722 (1983), cert. denied sub nom. Formaldehyde Inst., Inc. v. Frechette, 464 U.S. 936 (1983). We have cautioned that “guidelines that fail to heed growing scientific consensus in an area may undercut the individualized nature of the hearing to which a sex offender is entitled, an important due process right.” Doe No. 205614, supra at 608, citing Doe No. 10800, supra at 626. See Doe No. 151564, 456 Mass. at 623 n.6.
“First, children have a ’ “lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility,” ’ leading to recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-taking. . . . Second, children ‘are more vulnerable . . . to negative influences and outside pressures,’ including from their family and peers; they have limited ‘contro[l] over their own environment’ and lack the ability to extricate themselves from horrific, crime-producing settings. . . . And third, a child‘s character is not as ‘well formed’ as an adult‘s; his traits are ‘less fixed’ and his actions less likely to be ‘evidence of irretrievabl[e] deprav[ity].’ ”
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2464 (2012), quoting Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569, 570 (2005). The Court explained that its view of juvenile behavior rests
“not only on common sense — on what ‘any рarent knows’ — but on science and social science as well. . . . In Roper, we cited studies showing that ’ “[o]nly a relatively small proportion of adolescents” ’ who engage in illegal activity ’ “develop entrenched patterns of problem behavior.” ’ . . . And in Graham [v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 68 (2010)], we noted that ‘developments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds’ — for example, in ‘parts of the brain involved in behavior control.’ ”
Miller, supra, quoting Roper, supra at 569, 570.
The guidelines do not ignore the importance of the distinctions, discussed in Miller, between adult and juvenile offenders. Rather, as explained, the guidelines delineate in some detail the different ways in whiсh they are to be applied to adults and to juveniles. See, e.g.,
A question nevertheless remains, which cannot be answered on the record before us, whether the manner in which the guidelines differentiate between adults and juveniles is sound in view of current scientific research. “SORB need not update its guidelines every time a new study is published,” Doe No. 205614, 466 Mass. at 605, but “[w]here, as here, scientific knowledge in a field is rapidly evolving, . . . the applicable standards may require more frequent modification in order to reflect accurately the current
Judgment affirmed.