subject: Massachusetts Minor Prostitution Sex Offender Lawyers Attorneys [print this page] John Doe, SORB Case NoJohn Doe, SORB Case No. 53930 v. Sex Offender Registry Board
SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, AT WORCESTER
March 18, 2009, Decided
March 19, 2009, Filed
On February 28, 2000, the plaintiff pled guilty to three counts of inducing a minor into prostitution. The plaintiff works and resides in the Commonwealth. On April 15, 2003, in compliance with the Sex Offender Registry Law (the "SORL"), G.L.c. 6, 178C-178Q, and 803 Code Mass. Regs. 1.00-1.41, the Board notified the plaintiff that he must register as a Level 2 sex offender.
The plaintiff subsequently made a timely request for a hearing to challenge the Board's recommendation. On April 11, 2005, a hearing was held before a Board hearing examiner. In his final decision, dated May 10, 2005, the hearing examiner found that the plaintiff had a duty to register as a Level 2 sex offender in the Commonwealth. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to G.L.c. 30A, 14, and G.L.c. 6, 178M, challenging the hearing examiner's decision. The party appealing an administrative decision bears the burden of demonstrating the decision's invalidity
Issue:
Did the Board erred in classify the plaintiff using the statutory and regulatory fact set forth in G.L.c. 6, 178K(1)(a)-(l), and 803 Code Mass. Regs. 1.40?
Was the Board's decision based on substantial evidence?
The Court held that the SORL specifically includes inducing a minor into prostitution within the definition of sex offense. G.L.c. 6, 178C. Accordingly, one who pleads guilty to inducing a minor into prostitution pleads guilty to a sex offense, is a sex offender pursuant to G.L.c. 6, 178C, and must be classified through use of the Board's statutory and regulatory factors, regardless of whether or not the offender physically committed a sexual assault. See G.L.c. 6, 178K(1); 803 Code Mass. Regs. 1.40. As such, the Board did not err in applying the statutory and regulatory factors set forth in G.L.c. 6, 178K(1)(a)-(l), and 803 Code Mass. Regs. 1.40 to classify the plaintiff.
2) Was the Board's decision based on substantial evidence?
The Court states that the substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. After the plaintiff's hearing, the hearing examiner issued a twenty-five-page decision and applied sixteen of the Board's statutory and regulatory factors to the plaintiff. Review of the hearing examiner's detailed findings demonstrates that he, as required, properly considered all of the aggravating factors and balanced them against the mitigating factors that weighed in favor of a lower classification. The hearing examiner also took the opinion offered by the plaintiff's expert into consideration. Based on the evidence before him, the hearing examiner was justified in classifying the plaintiff as a Level 2 sex offender, and therefore, his classification was based on substantial evidence. The decision is well reasoned and supported by the facts in the record. The hearing examiner's decision was based on substantial evidence and the hearing examiner carefully considered the opinion offered by the plaintiff's expert in making it. In addition, the Supreme Judicial Court has held that the use of experts during classification proceedings is discretionary. As such, the Board did not err in failing to proffer expert testimony to support its classification of the plaintiff or to rebut the testimony offered by the plaintiff's expert.
Conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied and the defendant Sex Offender Registry Board's motion for judgment on the pleadings is allowed.
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 Minor Prostitution Sex Offender Lawyers Attorneys
