Soe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 252997 v. Sex Offender Registry Board (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-168-13)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11290 JOHN SOE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD NO. 252997 vs. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD. Plymouth. May 7, 2013. ‑ September 11, 2013. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Sex Offender. Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act. Constitutional Law, Sex offender, Self‑incrimination. Due Process of Law, Sex offender, Continuance. Evidence, Sex offender, Acquittal in prior criminal trial. Practice, Civil, Sex offender, Continuance. Administrative Law, Agency’s authority. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on April 22, 2010. The case was heard by Robert C. Cosgrove, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Ethan C. Stiles for the plaintiff. William H. Burke for the defendant. Brandon L. Campbell, for Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. GANTS, J. The plaintiff appeals from the decision of a Superior Court judge affirming his classification as a level three sex offender by the Sex Offender Registry Board (board). The plaintiff is a “sex offender” as defined in G. L. c. 6, § 178C, as a result of his convictions on June 17, 2009, of indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen, in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13H, and therefore he is subject to classification by the board. At the time of his classification hearing, the plaintiff was awaiting trial on charges that he had repeatedly sexually assaulted his young stepdaughter. The police reports setting forth the stepdaughter’s allegations and the consequent police investigation were admitted in evidence at the classification hearing. On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the board committed an error of law and abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue the classification hearing until his pending criminal case was “resolved” without balancing “the plaintiff’s due process interest in preparing his defense” in the criminal case “against [the board’s] interest in protecting the public.” Alternatively, the plaintiff argues that because the hearing examiner relied on the untried allegations of sexual assault in classifying him as a level three sex offender, “public policy demands reconsideration” of his classification where he was later found not guilty of the sexual offenses at his criminal trial. We recognize that a sex offender who has […]