Massachusetts Juvenile Sex Offense Rape Probation Offenders Registration Lawyers Attorneys
COMMONWEALTH vs
COMMONWEALTH vs. RONALD R., a juvenile.SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
October 1, 2007, Argued
December 13, 2007, Decided
In the summer of 2004, the juvenile, who was fourteen years old at the time, engaged in vaginal and oral sex with a six year old child who had gone to the juvenile's house to swim. The victim testified that, before the actual rape took place, the juvenile told her that she had to "do something" in order to go in the pool and even offered her money.
His sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation. As a condition of his probation he was ordered to complete a two-year sex offender program for adolescent sex offenders at the Lake Grove School. On May 26, 2005, the judge held a hearing to consider the issue of sex offender registration pursuant to G. L. c. 6, 178E (f). After hearing arguments from counsel, the judge denied the juvenile's motion for relief from his duty to register as a sex offender.
Issue:
Is there any separate right of appeal from the judge's decision on denial of defendant motion for relief from the registration requirement?
As a threshold matter, the juvenile claims that he has a separate right of appeal from the judge's decision to deny his motion for relief from the registration requirement. He argues that the statutorily mandated hearing was an "extension of the sentencing process from which the juvenile had an automatic right of appeal," rather than a collateral proceeding. Although a sex offender may not appeal from a judge's decision not to waive the registration requirement, we conclude that either party may petition a single justice of this court, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, 3, that grants this court "general superintendence . . . to correct and prevent errors and abuses" for thefurtherance of justice. G. L. c. 211, 3. Furthermore, the juvenile presents no evidence of a prior criminal history and the Commonwealth claims that the juvenile has no criminal history. Therefore, the judge was in a position to conclude that, based on "the facts of this case," the juvenile was not entitled to relief from his duty to register as a sex offender. The judge only relied on the facts of the case before him, which is evident by his statement that "on the facts of this case" he chose not to relieve him. Moreover, this court concludes that the facts alone, a fourteen year old raping a six year old, are sufficient to support the judge's conclusion that the juvenile poses a danger to the public and his subsequent denial of the waiver of the duty to register.
For the reasons set forth above, this court remands the case to the Juvenile Court so that the matter may be sent to the Sex Offender Registry Board.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Massachusetts Juvenile Sex Offense Rape Probation Offenders Registration Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah