Doe motion in Massachusetts

2026The examiner denied Doe's motion for funds, finding that Doe "[had] not met his burden to show how the 2021 [Massachusetts Treatment Center] diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder [was] related to the commission of the sex offense or sexual recidivism" and failed to provide sufficient evidence that he had a "condition that [was] particular to him that would warrant expert testimony." We find unavailing Doe's contention that the examiner erred in denying his motion for expert funds. "[T]he decision whether to grant an individual sex offender funds for an expert is a discretionary one, to

2025He argues that the examiner abused her discretion by denying Doe's motion for expert funds, while only giving his physical limitations moderate mitigating weight. "[T]he decision whether to grant an individual sex offender funds for an expert is a discretionary one, to be based on the facts presented in an individual case." Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 89230 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 452 Mass. 764, 775 (2008).

2026This conclusion is bolstered by the hearing examiner's analysis of factor 37 (other information related to the nature of the sexual behavior), where she stated that she considered in her deliberations the "various scholarly articles" on the adolescent brain submitted by Doe, given his "youthfulness at the time that he committed the governing offenses and sexual misconduct." See Doe No. 68549, 470 Mass. at 112-114 (holding that examiner did not ignore Doe's adolescence, "a scientifically relevant factor," where studies comparing adolescent and adult brains not in record and examiner "took into

2024See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 68549 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 470 Mass. 102, 114 (2014), quoting Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10800 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 459 Mass. 603, 630 (2011) ("judicial review is confined to the administrative record"). 2 We note, however, that a hearing examiner is not required to rely on expert testimony and may classify an offender based solely on the expertise embodied by the board's regulations.

2026We "may set aside or modify SORB's classification decision" if we determine that it exceeds "SORB's statutory authority or jurisdiction, violates constitutional provisions, is based on an error of law, or is not supported by substantial evidence." Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 496501 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 482 Mass. 643, 649 (2019) (Doe No. 496501), citing G.

2023See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 496501 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 482 Mass. 643, 655 (2019) (noting that "[w]here a sexually violent offender presents [even] a moderate risk to reoffend and a moderate degree of dangerousness, Internet publication will 7 For this reason, we also find that the examiner properly weighed the letters of support with the lack of detail contained therein as to what specific support was provided to give factor 33 "moderate" weight. 7 almost invariably serve a public safety interest by notifying potential victims of the risks presented by the offender in thei

2026See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 523391 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 95 Mass. App. Ct. 85 , 89 1 The examiner allowed Doe's motion to hold the final classification decision as provisional and continue the hearing to a date closer to his release pursuant to Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 7083 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 472 Mass. 475, 484 (2015). 3 (2019) (Doe No. 523391).

2025See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 523391 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 95 Mass. App. Ct. 85, 89 (2019).

2026See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 523391 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 95 Mass. App. Ct. 85 , 89 1 The examiner allowed Doe's motion to hold the final classification decision as provisional and continue the hearing to a date closer to his release pursuant to Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 7083 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 472 Mass. 475, 484 (2015). 3 (2019) (Doe No. 523391).

2023In Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 7083 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 472 Mass. 475, 478 (2015) (Doe No. 7083), the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that holding a classification hearing ten months before the plaintiff's earliest parole eligibility date and eighteen months before their earliest possible release date from the treatment center violated the plaintiff's right to procedural due process because of the risk that the classification decision was based on 10 "stale" information.

2026See Poe, 456 Mass. at 813 .

2023In reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, "we first consider 'whether there has been serious incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention of counsel -- behavior of counsel falling measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer.'" Poe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 801, 812 (2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974).

2026See, e.g., Doe No. 205614, 466 Mass. at 610 (abuse of discretion to 9 Additionally, "the decision whether to grant an individual sex offender funds for an expert is a discretionary one, to be based on the facts presented in an individual case." Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 89230 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 452 Mass. 764, 775 (2008) (Doe No. 89230).

2025As we have already concluded, see section 2 supra, an 11 offender commits a sexual offense when he traffics a person for sexual servitude, "regardless of the motivation of [his] conduct." Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 205614 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 466 Mass. 594, 612 (2013) (Cordy, J., concurring).

2026See Wodinsky v. Kettenbach, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 825, 837 (2015) (element of civil conspiracy is two or more defendants acting in concert). 15 Mass. 111 , 122 (2025), citing Nelson v. Salem State College, 446 Mass. 525, 537 (2006).

2026See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 356011 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 88 Mass. App. Ct. 73, 77-78 (2015).4 Accordingly, the hearing examiner 3 There is nothing in the record to support Doe's claim that the grandmother "pressured" or coerced the girls with her questions.

2026See Solimene, 399 Mass. at 799 .

2026See Wodinsky v. Kettenbach, 86 Mass. App. Ct. 825, 837 (2015) (element of civil conspiracy is two or more defendants acting in concert). 15 Mass. 111 , 122 (2025), citing Nelson v. Salem State College, 446 Mass. 525, 537 (2006).

2026See Polay v. McMahon, 468 Mass. 379, 388 (2014) (bare assertion of severe emotional distress insufficient to survive motion to dismiss); Mass. R.

2026See Dzung Duy Nguyen, 479 Mass. at 461 . 3.

2025See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 27914 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 81 Mass. App. Ct. 610, 617 (2012).

2024The hearing examiner was required to consider both the board's evidence and "whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight." New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 466 (1981), quoting Cohen v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 350 Mass. 246, 253 (1966).

2024See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 68549 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 470 Mass. 102, 114 (2014), quoting Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10800 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 459 Mass. 603, 630 (2011) ("judicial review is confined to the administrative record"). 2 We note, however, that a hearing examiner is not required to rely on expert testimony and may classify an offender based solely on the expertise embodied by the board's regulations.

2024See Smith v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 65 Mass. App. Ct. 803, 810 (2006).

2024The hearing examiner was required to consider both the board's evidence and "whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight." New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456, 466 (1981), quoting Cohen v. Board of Registration in Pharmacy, 350 Mass. 246, 253 (1966).

2023In holding that the board had properly denied the petitioner's motion to reopen the proceeding because the petitioner had "failed to articulate in any manner how he was prejudiced by the error," id. at 458 , the Supreme Judicial 3 If the board's review of Doe's motion had been subject to the rule 30 (b) standard, his appellate counsel's failure to file an appeal would clearly have raised a serious issue warranting an evidentiary hearing if there was any question that prior counsel's failure to file a notice of appeal was the result of Doe's counseled choice. 10 Court held the petitioner to the

2023See Doe No. 23656, 483 Mass. at 135 n.4; 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.33(19)(a) (2016). 1 The hearing examiner also found that Doe licked the child's breasts, but did not include that finding in the discussion of factor 19. 2 When describing the governing sex offense, the hearing officer found that the child refused Doe's request that the child put Doe's penis in the child's mouth. 3 The hearing examiner noted that as to the articles Doe submitted, "I give those articles appropriate weight in consideration of the superintendence of the Board's regulations . . . and accordingly, only to the extent

2023Likewise, the board was not required to adhere to the standard of review applicable to motions filed under rule 30 (b) in reviewing Doe's motion, which the board denied without a hearing in a margin endorsement just a few days after it was 2 A motion pursuant to rule 30 (b) "permits examination of the claimed errors to determine whether the defendant was deprived of any constitutionally protected rights by his failure to appeal." Commonwealth v. Cowie, 404 Mass. 119, 123 (1989).

2023Likewise, the board was not required to adhere to the standard of review applicable to motions filed under rule 30 (b) in reviewing Doe's motion, which the board denied without a hearing in a margin endorsement just a few days after it was 2 A motion pursuant to rule 30 (b) "permits examination of the claimed errors to determine whether the defendant was deprived of any constitutionally protected rights by his failure to appeal." Commonwealth v. Cowie, 404 Mass. 119, 123 (1989).

2023In reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, "we first consider 'whether there has been serious incompetency, inefficiency, or inattention of counsel -- behavior of counsel falling measurably below that which might be expected from an ordinary fallible lawyer.'" Poe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 801, 812 (2010), quoting Commonwealth v. Saferian, 366 Mass. 89, 96 (1974).

2023See 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.31(5)(e) (2016) (in deciding motion for reclassification, board is not foreclosed from "considering the information relied on by the Board to determine the sex offender's prior classification levels, including any prior written decisions issued by the Board"); Noe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 5340 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 480 Mass. 195, 203 (2018) ("We recognize that an offender who has previously been registered is not in the same position as someone who has never offended or 14 never been registered").7 Requiring Doe to seek "reclassification" is not an ad

2019See Shawmut Community Bank, N.A ., 411 Mass. at 811 (obligation of appellants to include in appendix relevant portions of transcripts and trial court record "necessary to determine whether the arguments raised on appeal are first, correct, and second, properly preserved").

2015See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 1 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 79 Mass. App. Ct. 683, 689 (2011).

2015See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 1 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 79 Mass. App. Ct. 683, 689 (2011). 4 Contrary to Doe's contention, the hearing examiner did not consider substance abuse as a factor in Doe's classification. 6 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.40(10) (2002).

2012See Pike, supra. Cf. Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677-678 (1979), and cases cited. 11 Accordingly, the allowance of summary judgment on Doe’s claim regarding the imposition of the GPS monitoring conditions was contrary to law.