Posts tagged "376575"

Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 376575 v. Sex Offender Registry Board (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-179-16)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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;   14-P-926                                        Appeals Court   JOHN DOE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD NO. 376575  vs.  SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD.     No. 14-P-926.   Suffolk.     October 20, 2016. – December 22, 2016.   Present:  Hanlon, Sullivan, & Blake, JJ.     Sex Offender.  Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act.  Jurisdiction, Sex offender.  Evidence, Sex offender.  Obscenity, Child pornography.     Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on December 18, 2012.   The case was heard by Paul D. Wilson, J., on a motion for judgment on the pleadings; a motion for reconsideration was considered by him; and a motion for postjudgment relief, filed on April 30, 2015, was heard by him.     Christopher M. Bova for the defendant. Jay G. Hook for the plaintiff.     BLAKE, J.  While he was in the United States Army, John Doe No. 376575 (Doe or plaintiff) was convicted by general court martial of possession of child pornography in violation of art. 134, 10 U.S.C. § 934 (2012), the “general” provision of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (code).  Following his release from military confinement, the sex offender registry board (board) classified Doe as a level two sex offender.  Doe sought review in the Superior Court, where the judge concluded that the board lacked jurisdiction over Doe because his conviction under art. 134 was not a “like violation” sex offense requiring registration.  See G. L. c. 6, §§ 178C-178P (sex offender registration statute).  The board now appeals.  We conclude that, under the circumstances here, where Doe had notice of and subsequently pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (2012), the art. 134 conviction was a “like violation” such that it constitutes a sex offense under G. L. c. 6, § 178C.  We vacate the judgment.[1] Background.  We summarize the facts found by the hearing examiner, supplemented by undisputed facts from the record.  After a soldier stationed with the plaintiff observed what he believed to be child pornography on the plaintiff’s computer, he notified his commander, who initiated an investigation.  A “U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command” final investigation report (investigation report), dated January 6, 2012, states that probable cause had been established to believe that the plaintiff had “committed the offense of Possession of Child Pornography when his personal computer was forensically examined, and multiple images of child pornography were discovered.”  The investigation report further notes […]


Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - December 22, 2016 at 5:21 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , , ,