Poe v. Sex Offender Registry Board

Summary

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision classifying Poe as a level three sex offender. The court held that a regulation excluding an expert's written risk assessment absent live testimony was constitutionally valid, and that although counsel performed unreasonably by introducing damaging treatment records, Poe failed to show prejudice.

Holdings

1. 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.40(15) is constitutionally valid because it bears a rational relationship to legitimate state interests in the fairness and accuracy of sex-offender classification hearings.
2. A sex offender who has a statutory right to appointed counsel at a classification hearing is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel, and claims are governed by the civil formulation of the Saferian standard.
3. Counsel's disclosure to the board and introduction into evidence of Dr. Dickey's letter and follow-up note constituted performance falling measurably below that expected of an ordinary fallible lawyer.
4. Poe failed to establish prejudice because, even without Dr. Dickey's documents, there was no reasonable probability that the board would have classified him below level three.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.40(15) violated due process or equal protection by requiring exclusion of an expert's written opinion concerning risk of reoffense when the expert did not testify and was not subject to cross-examination.
2. Whether Poe was denied the effective assistance of counsel when counsel disclosed and introduced damaging mental-health records at the classification hearing.
3. Whether Poe demonstrated prejudice sufficient to warrant relief from his level-three classification.

Disposition

affirmed