## Facts

- John Doe (SORB No. 205614), a female offender, pleaded guilty in federal court to offenses arising from operating an escort service that employed four minor girls, including sex trafficking of children under 18 U.S.C. § 1591.
- Massachusetts treated the federal conviction as a “like violation” of an enumerated Massachusetts sex offense requiring registration.
- After a classification hearing, SORB found Doe presented a low risk of reoffense and dangerousness and classified her as a Level 1 sex offender.
- Doe submitted research materials asserting that female sex offenders generally have lower recidivism rates than male offenders and that predictors of reoffense may differ by gender.
- Doe moved for funds to retain an expert witness to explain the research and its relevance to applying SORB’s risk factors to female offenders.
- The hearing examiner denied expert-witness funding and stated that SORB’s criteria applied equally regardless of gender, without meaningfully addressing Doe’s submitted research.
- SORB’s classification regulations had not been revised for approximately eleven years despite intervening research on female sexual recidivism.
- The Superior Court entered judgment on the pleadings for SORB; Doe appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether SORB acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to consider substantial evidence concerning the effect of gender on sexual-offense recidivism in classifying Doe.
2. Whether the hearing examiner abused his discretion by denying Doe funds to retain an expert witness on female sex-offender recidivism and the fit between the research and SORB’s risk factors.

## Decision

- The court vacated SORB’s classification decision and remanded for further proceedings.
- SORB acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to consider substantial, relevant evidence submitted on gender and recidivism.
- The hearing examiner abused his discretion in denying funds for an expert witness given the technical nature of the research and the age of the regulatory framework.
- On remand, Doe was entitled to a meaningful opportunity to present expert testimony and have gender-related recidivism evidence considered in the individualized risk assessment.

## Legal Principles

- Under administrative-law review, an agency decision must be supported by substantial evidence and must not be arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to law.
- Sex-offender classification must be individualized and tied to the statutory objective of accurately assessing risk of reoffense and dangerousness.
- An agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it fails to consider an important aspect of the problem or offers no reasoned explanation connecting the evidence to the decision.
- A gender-neutral regulatory framework does not permit the agency to disregard substantial, credible, case-specific scientific evidence that bears directly on recidivism risk.
- Where technical, developing scientific evidence is central to the classification inquiry, denial of reasonable expert-witness funding may constitute an abuse of discretion if it prevents meaningful presentation and testing of the evidence.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court held that SORB could not classify a female registrant while ignoring substantial gender-specific recidivism evidence, and that the denial of expert funding was an abuse of discretion in light of outdated regulations and technical research; it vacated the Level 1 classification and remanded for a renewed, evidence-based determination.


Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 466 Mass. 594, 999 N.E.2d 478 (Mass. 2013)