John Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 190908 v. Sex Offender Registry Board

Summary

The Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed a Superior Court judgment upholding the Sex Offender Registry Board's reclassification of John Doe from a level two to a level three sex offender. The court held that Doe's subsequent criminal convictions rendered moot his challenge to the reliability of hearsay evidence concerning the new offenses, while his remaining challenges to the application of regulatory risk factors were not moot and lacked merit.

Holdings

1. Doe's subsequent criminal convictions rendered moot his challenge to the reliability of the hearsay evidence used to establish that he committed the new sex offenses.
2. The hearing examiner did not abuse her discretion by relying on hearsay and other information in DCF records apart from facts established by Doe's convictions because the records were sufficiently reliable.
3. The Board's classification decision must be supported by clear and convincing evidence and may be disturbed only on the grounds specified by the administrative-review statute, including lack of substantial evidence, legal error, or abuse of discretion.
4. The hearing examiner did not abuse her discretion by considering Doe's history of substance abuse, criminal-justice contact, and nonsexual violence, despite the age or disposition of some underlying offenses.
5. The record supported application of factor 15 because abuse-prevention orders had been obtained by three different women in different years.
6. Substantial evidence supported application of factor 16 to Doe's sexual misconduct in both a wooded hut and the living room of his home.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Doe's subsequent convictions rendered moot his challenge to the reliability of hearsay evidence concerning the new sex offenses.
2. Whether hearsay and other information contained in Department of Children and Families records constituted sufficiently reliable evidence to support the reclassification decision.
3. Whether the hearing examiner abused her discretion or lacked substantial evidence when applying regulatory factors concerning substance abuse, criminal-justice contact, nonsexual violence, hostility toward women, and sexual misconduct in a public place.
4. Whether the Superior Court properly upheld the Board's level-three classification decision.

Disposition

affirmed