Commonwealth v. Samuel S., a juvenile (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-033-17)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.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-12135 COMMONWEALTH vs. SAMUEL S., a juvenile. Hampden. November 9, 2016. – February 17, 2017. Present: Gants, C.J., Botsford, Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. Sex Offender. Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act. Youthful Offender Act. Delinquent Child. Global Positioning System Device. Juvenile Court, Delinquent child, Probation. Practice, Criminal, Juvenile delinquency proceeding, Probation. Complaint received and sworn to in the Hampden County Division of the Juvenile Court Department on August 21, 2014. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on October 3, 2014. Motions for relief from conditions of probation were heard by Judith J. Phillips, J., and a motion for reconsideration was considered by her. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. Laura Chrismer Edmonds for the juvenile. Cynthia Cullen Payne, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Ryan M. Schiff & Caroline Alpert, Committee for Public Counsel Services, for Youth Advocacy Division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, amicus curiae, submitted a brief. BOTSFORD, J. The juvenile was adjudicated both a youthful offender and a delinquent juvenile as the result of a single sexual assault. A Juvenile Court judge ordered the juvenile to register as a sex offender and to submit to global positioning system (GPS) monitoring, concluding that both consequences, under the relevant statutes, were mandatory. The juvenile argues that this conclusion was error. He argues first that the pertinent section of the sex offender registration statute, G. L. c. 6, § 178E (f), required the judge to make an individualized determination whether the juvenile must register as a sex offender because he was not “sentenced to immediate confinement” within the meaning of the statute. He also argues that the GPS monitoring statute, G. L. c. 265, § 47, as interpreted by this court in Commonwealth v. Hanson H., 464 Mass. 807 (2013), does not require youthful offenders to submit to GPS monitoring. We agree with the juvenile on both points. Accordingly, we vacate the judge’s decision.[1] Background. 1. Facts.[2] This case stems from a sexual assault that occurred in June, 2014. The juvenile, who was seventeen years old at the time, was at home with the victim, his five-year-old half-sister. The victim’s father returned home and entered the living room. There, he saw the victim […]