Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Judicial Appeals Court Oral Arguments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews classification and risk findings in sex‑offender registry matter after regulatory change
Summary
The Appeals Court considered an administrative appeal in which a hearing officer’s post‑remand sex‑offender classification and risk assessment were challenged on whether remaining factors and clinical evidence support clear‑and‑convincing proof of reoffense risk.
Docket 23P1323 (Sorb v. Board) came before the Appeals Court on Feb. 6. The appeal concerns an administrative decision classifying an offender and the hearing officer’s application of regulatory risk factors after a remand that limited reliance on one previously used factor.
Appellant counsel Frederick Bartman argued the hearing officer’s post‑remand decision still relied on disallowed elements and failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the appellant posed a moderate risk of reoffending or that public internet publication would materially reduce risk. Bartman emphasized the remand required re‑weighing the record without Factor 2 (a regulatory factor the SJC and a later declaratory judgment had found unreliable when used as drafted). He said the hearing officer nonetheless relied on repetitive conduct and other generalized factors without analyzing gender‑sensitive research or the clinical opinion of the defense expert, Dr. Guidry, who reported that common male‑oriented risk instruments do not reliably predict female reoffense patterns.
The board’s counsel, Roxanne Greenaway, said the hearing officer considered the required factors and that Factor 3 (offending against a prepubescent child) and other listed items properly supported a classification that included internet publication as a public‑safety measure. She noted the regulations themselves, promulgated with cited research, identify certain high‑risk factors and that hearing examiners may examine the totality of the record, including repetitive offending, in assessing dangerousness under Factor 37 (a catch‑all). The board said the record contained sufficient indicia—including child‑victim status, accounts of repeated offending, and corroborating documents—to satisfy the standard.
Counsel debated limiting principles for when repetitive conduct is relevant to risk versus dangerousness, and whether the hearing officer’s written opinion adequately explained which facts were weighed for reoffense risk versus dangerousness. Appellant counsel asked the panel to reverse and remand for a fresh, factor‑compliant hearing; the board urged the court to affirm. The panel took the matter under advisement.
