Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 11, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

John Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 528260 v. Sex Offender Registry Board.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 24-P-1042

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (683)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule
23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28,
as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties
and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's
decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire
court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case.
A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25,
2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted
above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260
n.4 (2008).

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPEALS COURT

24-P-1042

JOHN DOE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD NO. 528260

vs.

SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0

The plaintiff, John Doe (Doe), appeals from a Superior

Court judgment affirming his classification by the Sex Offender

Registry Board (SORB) as a level three sex offender. On appeal,

Doe claims that SORB's decision was not supported by substantial

evidence where (1) the evidence did not support the hearing

examiner's findings that Doe penetrated victim one or that he

sexually abused victim two, and (2) the hearing examiner's

application of risk factors concerning repetitive and compulsive

behavior (factor 2), diverse victim type (factor 21), and victim

impact statement (factor 38) was arbitrary and capricious.1 We

1Doe also argues that his liberty and privacy interests
outweigh the public interest of accessing his biographical
information. From the record before us, this argument is raised
affirm.

1. Victim one. Doe claims that the evidence before the

hearing examiner did not support his finding that Doe penetrated

victim one's anus. As a result, Doe claims the hearing examiner

misapplied the level of physical contact (factor 19). We

disagree.

"To determine the validity of an agency's decision, the

reviewing court must determine whether the decision is supported

by substantial evidence." Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No.

10216 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 779, 787 (2006).

"Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (quotation and

citation omitted). Id. "In the context of administrative

proceedings, hearsay evidence bearing indicia of reliability

constitutes admissible and substantial evidence." Doe, Sex

Offender Registry Bd. No. 10800 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.,

459 Mass. 603, 638 (2011). Where there is an allegation of

sexual misconduct that did not result in a conviction for a sex

offense, the hearing examiner may consider the facts underlying

the charges where such facts are proven by a preponderance of

for the first time on appeal and therefore we treat it as
waived. See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 3974 v. Sex
Offender Registry Bd., 457 Mass. 53, 59 (2010).

2
the evidence. See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 3177 v.

Sex Offender Registry Bd., 486 Mass. 749, 754-755 (2021).

Doe's seven year old daughter (victim one) disclosed during

a sexual assault intervention network (SAIN) interview that her

father took her "clothes off," and "took his pants and underwear

off." She explained that Doe "put his balls in her butt and on

her back" and that he "was moving his body up and down." She

also said that during the sexual assault she was "faced down on

the floor," that Doe's "[balls] felt hard like a rock."

Importantly, the young girl said that as a result of Doe's

conduct, "her bottom hurt." Doe also told her not to say

anything to anybody.

Based on the entirety of victim one's statement, especially

that Doe "was moving his body up and down" and that her "bottom

hurt," the hearing examiner had the discretionary authority to

reasonably infer that Doe's sexual assault against his daughter

included some degree of penile penetration of her anus. See 803

Code Mass. Regs. 1.19(1)(h) (2016) (hearing examiner may "draw

all reasonable inferences" from evidence).2

Doe suggests that because the hospital staff, who examined
2

victim one, did not find that penetration occurred or that there
was a presence of semen or trauma, it was error for the hearing
examiner to find that Doe penetrated her anus with his penis.
However, in fact, the hospital staff only did a "cursory"
examination of victim one, and a rape kit was not performed. In
any event, the absence of semen or the absence of trauma to the

3
2. Victim two. Doe also claims that the hearing evidence,

in the form of hearsay, did not support the hearing examiner's

finding that Doe sexually abused victim two and thus led him to

misapply one high-risk and four risk-elevating factors. We

disagree.

To determine the reliability of hearsay statements found in

records admitted at a board classification hearing, the hearing

examiner must first consider the circumstances in which the

statements were made. See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No.

136652 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 81 Mass. App. Ct. 639, 649

(2012). Among the factors the hearing examiner should consider

are "the general plausibility and consistency of the victim's or

witness's story, the circumstances under which it is related,

the degree of detail, the motives of the narrator, the presence

or absence of corroboration and the like," and the consistency

of the hearsay incident with other, known behavior (citation

omitted). Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 523391 v. Sex

Offender Registry Bd., 95 Mass. App. Ct. 85, 89 (2019). In the

end, we must ask whether "it was reasonable for the examiner to

victim's anus would not establish that penetration did not
occur. See Commonwealth v. Rice, 441 Mass. 291, 304 (2004).
Nor does it matter that Doe was acquitted of rape and only
convicted of the lesser included offense of indecent assault and
battery on a child. See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No.
3177, 486 Mass. at 754-755.

4
admit and credit the facts described in the hearsay evidence"

(quotation and citation omitted). Id.

Victim two, a four year old girl, and her six year old

sister, were left in Doe's care while their mother was at work.

Doe was the then-boyfriend of the mother's sister, whose house

the girls were at. The mother returned from work and could hear

the girls upstairs in her sister's bedroom. Upon opening the

door, she saw victim two in bed with Doe who had a "bulge" in

his pants that looked like an erection.

After retrieving the girls and returning home, the mother

asked them why victim two was in bed with Doe. The sister

replied that victim two was "rubbing" Doe's back and stomach

area because Doe said "his belly hurt." At this point, the

mother took her daughters to their grandmother's home.

Initially believing the incident was innocent, and to dispel any

impropriety, the grandmother asked the girls if Doe had put

anything in their mouth or "bum" or "front," or touched their

"boobs" or "bum." The girls said, "no." She then asked if Doe

had touched their "front," the sister said, "no," and victim two

began to cry and said, "yes . . . he did." The grandmother

5
asked if Doe had touched her under her pants, and she said, no,

"he did it from the top."3

From this evidence, the hearing examiner properly

determined that Doe had touched victim two's "front" over her

pants because the hearsay was both plausible and detailed. See

Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 523391, 95 Mass. App. Ct. at

89 (hearing examiner considers whether hearsay detailed and

plausible for reliability determination). In addition, this

evidence was corroborated by the mother's statement that Doe had

an erection, and the victim's sister reporting that victim two

had been "rubbing" Doe's back and stomach area. Victim two's

statements were detailed, plausible, and corroborated, which

permitted the hearing examiner to conclude that Doe touched

victim two's vagina over her pants. See 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. In fact, the grandmother's initial reaction to the
matter was that it was probably "something innocent."

4 Doe's assertion that victim two's account was contradicted
by other evidence is tenuous at best. That the young child
victim was unable to identify her vagina during the SAIN
interview does not equate to an inability to credit her as to
where Doe touched her. The hearing examiner was entitled to
credit the child's statement, which was an answer to questions
posed in descending anatomical order from mouth to "boobs," to
her "bum" and then her "front," and that her "front" was a

6
properly applied the risk-elevating factors relevant to the

sexual abuse of victim two.

1. Repetitive and compulsive behavior (factor 2). Doe

also claims the hearing examiner erred in applying factor 2 to

him because he had not been "confronted," "caught," or "charged"

relative to his rape of victim one before he committed the

indecent assault and battery on victim two. See 803

Code Mass. Regs. § 1.33(2)(a) (2016). We disagree.

This claim is based on Doe's misstatement of the record in

his brief, i.e., that Doe was not "confronted" or "caught" or

"charged" before he committed his sex offense on victim two. In

fact, in 2015, a Springfield Police detective spoke to Doe and

informed him of his daughter's allegations and that he had an

outstanding warrant. Doe told the detective that he would call

her back in order for him to come in and give a statement, but

he never did. Doe's sexual assault of victim two occurred in

2017, long after he had been confronted with victim one's

allegation. Thus, contrary to Doe's factual misstatement, he

was confronted and made aware of victim one's 2015 rape

allegation prior to his 2017 sexual assault on victim two.

reference to her vagina. Indeed, victim two's understanding of
where she was touched was further exemplified by her
clarification that Doe touched her over her pants, and not under
them, i.e., where her vagina is located.

7
Because of this, the hearing examiner properly applied factor 2

(Repetitive and Compulsive Behavior) and factor 3 (Adult

Offender with a Child Victim) at increased weight.5

1. Diverse victim type (factor 21). Doe further claims

that the hearing examiner erred in applying factor 21, diverse

victim type, because three studies suggest this risk-elevating

factor was not applicable to him. We disagree.

According to Doe, the scientific research, which underlies

factor 21, proves that having intrafamilial and extrafamilial

victims does not, as stated by factor 21, increase the risk or

danger posed by an offender. In support of this argument, Doe

cites three articles that SORB considered in its promulgation of

factor 21.6

5 Doe also claims that the hearing examiner improperly based
his conclusions on the "mechanical application of a checklist"
rather than on a qualitative analysis of the plaintiff's history
and personal circumstances. See Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd.
No. 11204 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 97 Mass. App. Ct. 564,
574 (2020). However, based on the record before us, this claim
was not raised in Doe's motion for judgment on the pleadings in
Superior Court. In this posture, the claim is waived. See Doe,
Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 3974, 457 Mass. at 59.

6 The articles are as follows: Hanson & Harris, Where
Should We Intervene? Dynamic Predictors of Sexual Offense
Recidivism, 27 Crim. Just. & Behav. 6 (2000); Heil, Ahlmeyer, &
Simons, Crossover Sexual Offenses, Sexual Abuse: J. Res. &
Treatment (2003); Kleban, Chesin, Jeglic, & Mercado, An
Exploration of Crossover Sexual Offending, Sexual Abuse: J. Res.
& Treatment (2013).

8
Factor 21 applies to offenders whose "sexual misconduct

traverse victim types, such as multiple ages, gender, or

relationship categories." 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.33(21)(a).

Here, Doe offended against victims of different relationship

categories, i.e., intrafamilial and extrafamilial, and

accordingly, this factor applies. Contrary to Doe's claims, the

hearing examiner was not free to disregard the text of the

regulation based on scientific studies. The hearing examiner is

obligated to apply SORB's factors as written. See 803 Code

Mass. Regs. § 1.33 ("the Board shall use the following factors

to determine a sex offender's level of risk of reoffense"

[emphasis added]).

1. Victim impact statement (factor 38). Finally, Doe

claims that the hearing examiner erred by determining that

victim impact statements written by his daughter and her mother

were indicative of the level of danger he posed, which is

contrary to both SORB's enabling statute and regulations. We

disagree.

Pursuant to G. L. c. 6, § 178K (1) (k), hearing examiners

and SORB, as part of the classification analysis, are mandated

to "review any victim impact statement." Also, factor 38(a)

"recognizes the substantial impact sex offenses have on

victims." 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.33(38)(a).

9
While Doe is correct that the hearing examiner did not

explain how the victim impact statement specifically affected

the level of danger Doe posed to the community, we note that the

hearing examiner merely "acknowledged" the impact statement with

respect to Doe's "degree of dangerousness," but did not assign

it any weight nor categorize it as a risk-elevating factor. In

any event, acknowledging the victim's (and her mother's)

physical and psychological injuries is important to the

consideration of the harm Doe is capable of causing should he

reoffend.

1. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude

that the hearing examiner's classification decision was

supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or

capricious. Therefore, the Superior Court judgment affirming

SORB's decision to classify Doe as a level three sex offender is

affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

By the Court (Blake, C.J.,
Meade & Tan, JJ.7),

Clerk

Entered: March 11, 2026.

7 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.

10