Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sex Offender Registry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews offender‑registry board classification where examiner split on familial status of victim
Summary
The court considered an appeal challenging a Sex Offender Registry Board examiner’s decision to classify John Doe at Level 2 after the examiner found ambiguous evidence about whether the victim was an intra‑familial or extra‑familial victim; the parties disputed application of factor 7 (two‑year household relationship).
The Appeals Court heard argument April 3 in John Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Board (docket 2024P00699) over whether the hearing examiner reasonably applied the Board’s risk-classification factors after finding the evidence equivocal about whether the victim was intra‑familial or extra‑familial.
Appellant counsel Alex Hahn acknowledged the seriousness of the underlying offense and said the record shows substantial progress by the petitioner since 2016, but he argued the examiner’s own language described the intra/extra‑familial evidence as “contradictory or vague” and that the Board failed to meet the required preponderance standard on the subsidiary findings needed to apply factor 7. Hahn noted the difference between the Board’s overall burden of clear and convincing evidence and the lower preponderance standard for subsidiary factual findings.
Why this matters: factor 7 assigns higher risk when the victim is an extra‑familial victim or a family‑member substitute of at least two years’ duration. Counsel for the Board, Gabriela Lamano, responded that the record supports the examiner’s conclusion that the petitioner did not live in the household full time and that other evidence (victim’s statement, mother’s statements, neighbor affidavits) supported treating the victim as extra‑familial for the factor’s purposes.
The justices questioned how the Board should apply factor 7 when family arrangements are irregular (shared custody, part‑time residency) and whether a letter from a neighbor saying a man lived next-door for 15 years (at a different address) undermines or supports the examiner’s factual findings. The Board emphasized that factor 3 (age of victim — 11 years old) and factor 16 (offense in presence of another) are strong risk indicators and argued that even if factor 7 were excluded the Level 2 classification would remain supported by the record.
No decision was announced. The panel took the case under advisement.
Ending: The court said it would issue a written decision after reviewing the examiner’s findings and the record.
