── Doe, Sex Offender Registry Board No. 97000 v. Sex Offender Registry Board ──
Court: Massachusetts Appeals Court
Date: May 15, 2026
Category: General
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030;
[email protected]
23-P-1024 Appeals Court
JOHN DOE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD NO. 97000 vs. SEX
OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD.
No. 23-P-1024.
Worcester. January 13, 2025. – May 15, 2026.
Present: Rubin, Henry, & Walsh, JJ.
Sex Offender. Sex Offender Registration and Community
Notification Act. Evidence, Expert opinion, Sex offender.
Witness, Expert. Administrative Law, Hearing, Judicial
review, Regulations, Substantial evidence.
Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on
July 28, 2022.
The case was heard by Valerie A. Yarashus, J.
Colin Caffrey for the plaintiff.
Jessica M. Blackman for the defendant.
HENRY, J. The plaintiff, John Doe, appeals from a Superior
Court judgment affirming his reclassification by the Sex
Offender Registry Board (SORB) as a level two sex offender. On
appeal, Doe argues that the hearing examiner (examiner), who
reduced his classification from a level three to a level two sex
offender, (1) abused her discretion in denying expert witness
2
funds where Doe was an emerging adult at the time he committed
the sex offenses of which he was convicted, (2) abused her
discretion in applying SORB's factor 2 (repetitive and
compulsive behavior), see 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.33(2) (2016),1
and (3) erred in classifying him as a level two sex offender.
We affirm.
Background. 1. The offenses. In 1997, when Doe was
thirteen years old, he sexually assaulted a nine year old boy
(victim one). The incident involved Doe repeatedly pulling the
boy's pants down and touching his penis. Victim one's family
reported Doe to the police, and Doe was interviewed by an
officer. After victim one's parents and Doe's parents agreed
that Doe would engage in counseling, no criminal charges were
filed.
About four years later, from July 2001 through January
2003, when Doe was almost eighteen,2 and continuing until after
he turned nineteen years old, he sexually assaulted five
additional child victims (victims two through six), all known to
1 We refer to SORB's classification factors by number, or
name and number, it being understood that each of them appears
in the corresponding subpart of 803 Code Mass. Regs. § 1.33
(2016). SORB's regulations were updated in 2025, but the 2016
version of the regulations were in effect at the time of the
examiner's decision in this case and therefore govern our
analysis.
2 Doe turned eighteen on August 30, 2001.
3
him. The victims included four boys, aged twelve to fourteen,
and one fifteen year old girl. Doe had a business where he
employed one of the victims and invited others to visit and use
the business's Internet service. Doe was trusted by the victims
as a babysitter and friend, and by victim four as a boyfriend.
Doe, however, used his business and access to the victims' homes
to commit sexual offenses. Doe's sexual offenses against the
victims included taking pictures of victim two while he was
using the bathroom, placing his mouth on the genitals of victims
two and five, penetrating victim four with his penis, offering
to buy things or pay the victims if they engaged in a variety of
sexual acts, groping the victims, asking the male victims to
show their penises to him, and showin