L.L., a juvenile v. Commonwealth
470 Mass. 169, 20 N.E.3d 930 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be relieved of the sex offender registration requirement under G. L. c. 6, § 178E(f), a juvenile offender must demonstrate that their risk of reoffense is less than the 'low' risk threshold that triggers mandatory registration. A judge determines this by assessing the circumstances of the offense and the offender's criminal history, and must give reasoned consideration to expert testimony and the risk factors outlined in G. L. c. 6, § 178K(1).
Facts:
- On May 9, 2013, the juvenile, then sixteen years old, approached an adult woman from behind in Lynn and pulled down her sweatpants to her thighs.
- The juvenile made a vulgar comment about the victim's private parts, grabbed his own genitals, and ran away.
- Eight days later, on May 17, 2013, the juvenile approached a different woman who was walking with four children, touched her buttocks, and pulled her pants to the ground.
- Lynn police apprehended the juvenile shortly after the second incident based on the victim's description.
- After speaking with his mother, the juvenile admitted to police that he had committed both acts.
- The juvenile explained that before the second incident, he had smoked marijuana and committed the act because he 'just felt the excitement,' but gave no reason for the first assault.
Procedural Posture:
- Two complaints issued from the Essex County Division of the Juvenile Court Department charging the juvenile with indecent assault and battery and disorderly conduct.
- Before a Juvenile Court judge, the juvenile admitted to sufficient facts for the charges.
- The juvenile filed a motion for relief from the obligation to register as a sex offender under G. L. c. 6, § 178E(f).
- After an evidentiary hearing, which included expert testimony from a forensic psychologist retained by the juvenile, the Juvenile Court judge denied the motion.
- The juvenile then filed a petition for relief in the county court, seeking review by the Supreme Judicial Court.
- A single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court stayed the registration order and reserved and reported the matter to the full court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does G. L. c. 6, § 178E(f), which allows a judge to relieve a sex offender from the registration obligation if the offender 'does not pose a risk of reoffense,' require a finding of absolutely no risk, or does it establish a less stringent, functional standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Botsford, J.
No. The statute does not require a finding of absolutely no risk; it requires a finding that the juvenile's risk of reoffense is less than the 'low' risk threshold that triggers the registration requirement. The court reasoned that requiring proof of 'no risk' is logically impossible and would render the statutory exemption meaningless, as experts agree it is impossible to state that a past offender has zero risk of reoffense. Instead, the court looked to the broader statutory scheme, particularly G. L. c. 6, § 178K(1), which establishes 'low' risk as the minimum threshold requiring registration. Therefore, to qualify for an exemption under § 178E(f), an offender's risk must be below this 'low' risk level—more than a purely speculative risk, but not a 'cognizable' or 'perceptible' risk that would trigger classification. A judge must base this assessment on the 'circumstances of the offense' and the 'offender's criminal history,' and should give serious, reasoned consideration to any expert evidence presented, even if the judge ultimately rejects it. While not required to issue written findings, the judge must explain on the record the reasons for their determination.
Analysis:
This case provides crucial clarification on the previously ambiguous standard for judicial relief from juvenile sex offender registration in Massachusetts. By rejecting an impossible 'no risk' standard and establishing a functional threshold—that the risk must be less than the 'low' level that mandates registration—the decision creates a more workable and fair framework for judges. The ruling also enhances procedural fairness by requiring judges to provide a reasoned explanation for their decisions on the record, especially when rejecting expert testimony. This ensures a basis for appellate review and promotes consistency in how risk is evaluated across the sex offender registration system.
