Appeals Court Hears Challenge to Sex-Offender Reclassification as SJC Review Looms

The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument on May 5, 2026 in 24P1018, John Doe (No. 526-937) v. Sex Offender Registry Board, a partially impounded reclassification appeal that centers on how the board weighed regulatory factors in assigning a sex-offender classification.

Appellant counsel Fred Burkeolder told the panel that the most important issue is whether the board may rely on multiple-offense findings under factor 37 to show dangerousness. Burkeolder said a pending Supreme Judicial Court case to be argued the next day could change the legal landscape and asked the appeals court to account for that possibility. He also questioned the hearing examiner’s use of factor 7 (position of trust), arguing that a prior unpublished decision and the record evidence support excluding that factor in this case. "There is no correlation between dangerousness and ... multiple offenses," Burkeolder said, citing a letter he said was submitted from Dr. Hansen.

The appellant also stressed mitigating circumstances the examiner credited, including the registrant’s age (counsel said the registrant is 62), participation in treatment and an outstanding probation term, and suggested that those factors counsel in favor of remand or a different classification outcome.

Nancy Moreny, appearing for the Sex Offender Registry Board, urged the court to affirm. Moreny said the hearing examiner found that the victim—described in the record as a 27-year-old adult with intellectual disabilities—gave sufficiently detailed and consistent accounts for a person with those disabilities, including repeated references to clothing and location, and that the examiner properly applied factor 19 (penetration) and factor 37 under controlling SJC precedent. "The decision was based on substantial evidence and proper application of the board's regulatory factors," Moreny said, adding that if the SJC issues new guidance the appeals court can consider it then.

Counsel for both sides cited current SJC decisions (transcript references include 527962 and 524724) and the arguments focused on whether the appeals court should weigh an imminent SJC ruling in assessing the Registry Board’s compliance with due process and proper factor application. No decision was issued from the bench; the matter was submitted to the court.

The panel heard these arguments in an impounded proceeding; the parties were reminded of the restricted status of the record. The appeals court recessed briefly before taking up additional cases on the calendar.