Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Offender Registry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court reviews offender-registry classification and application of regulatory factors
Summary
An impounded case about registry classification and the hearing examiner’s application of board factors — including whether property crimes were improperly treated as violent offenses — drew argument; the board defended the classification and denial of funds for experts; the court took the matter under advisement.
Edward Gauthier, representing a pseudonymous John Doe, challenged the offender-registry hearing examiner’s application of several regulatory factors and the denial of funding for expert testimony. Gauthier said the examiner improperly relied on property crimes under factor 11 and did not evaluate the seriousness and context of old probation violations; he also argued the record lacks police reports and underlying facts for many offenses.
James Haynes, counsel for the registry board, told the panel the examiner’s high-risk classification rested on substantial evidence including an assault involving a brick and the defendant’s history, and that actuarial scoring and treatment records supported the determination. Haynes defended the denial of funds as not an abuse of discretion where the motion was procedurally deficient and lacked a sufficient nexus.
Justices questioned the record gaps and whether the examiner adequately weighed the factors required by regulation; they explored whether the denial of funds or procedural defects affected the ultimate classification. The matter is impounded; the court took the appeal under advisement.
