New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney Blog
As is evident from other blog articles and materials on our website, we represent a substantial number of registrants who seek to terminate their Megan’s Law registration and CSL or PSL obligations. As such, we are constantly tracking new decisions that affect a registrant’s ability to do so and, where possible, navigate around decisions that may appear adverse to the interests of our clients. Two recent decisions presents hurdles to removal that must be carefully considered when seeking relief from these onerous and burdensome obligations.
A. Standing and Out-of-State Registrants
In Matter of JR, decided earlier this year, the registrant was convicted in New Jersey in 1993 of child endangerment, sentenced to a 5-year probationary term, and required to register pursuant to Megan’s Law. He relocated to Montana in or around 2021. The issue was whether JR had standing to seek termination of his registration obligation in the New Jersey Superior Court because he currently lived in Montana. The trial court denied JR’s motion because he lacked standing to seek relief in New Jersey because neither he nor his registration obligation obligation had any connection to our State, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
In discussing the trial court’s findings and conclusions, the Appellate Division noted that “[i]n order to possess standing, the plaintiff must have a sufficient stake in the outcome of the litigation, a real adverseness with respect to the subject matter, and there must be a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff will suffer harm in the event of an unfavorable decision.” (Citation omitted.) JR lacked a sufficient connection to New Jersey that would case him to suffer harm in New Jersey in the event of a denial of the relief sought because he was required to register in Montana. He did not live, work, or attend school, in New Jersey. Because he would not suffer harm in New Jersey as a result of our Superior Court’s possible denial of his motion, both the trial court and the Appellate Division found that he lacked standing to bring his motion in our Superior Court. Put somewhat differently, JR lacked standing to seek termination of his registration in the New Jersey Superior Court unless he would be harmed in New Jersey as a result of our trial court’s denial of his motion. At the time he made his motion, he had no registration obligation in New Jersey; rather, his entire registration obligation (indeed, his entire life) was Montana-based. Thus, he would not be harmed in New Jersey by our trial court’s denial of his motion.
In order to get around the full impact of this decision, a registrant who was convicted in New Jersey and now lives in another state should have some connection to New Jersey before making their motion in our Superior Court. Further, the registrant should be able to show that they will suffer harm in New Jersey stemming from or relating to this connection if the trial court denies their termination motion. Such a showing can establish the standing JR lacked. Additionally, and as the Appellate Division noted, the state of residence may, for example, require the registrant to terminate their registration obligation in New Jersey before the former will consider any motion filed in its court. In such a case, the registrant should be able to move for termination in New Jersey prior to seeking the same relief in their State of residence. Registrants who were convicted in New Jersey but now live in another state are, therefore, not necessarily barred from seeking relief here.
B. The Public Safety Prong
In order to be removed from Megan’s Law or CSL/PSL, a registrant must show that they are not likely to pose a threat to community safety. The Appellate Division discussed this requirement in Matter of SO and Matter of GN, also decided earlier this year. The trial court granted the respective motions of these registrants, and the State appealed. The Appellate Division found that the trial court’s decision was based largely on psychological evaluations that concluded that neither registrant was likely to sexually reoffend, but further noted that both registrants had fairly extensive records for both criminal and non-criminal offenses (e.g., DWI). One of the registrants was classified in Tier Two, and both had domestic violence histories. The psychologists who prepared the evaluations that accompanied their respective motions concluded that neither registrant was at risk of reoffending sexually, but the Court found that the public safety prong as set forth in both the Megan’s Law and CSL/PSL statutes required a more extensive showing. The issue was not only whether the registrants presented a risk of sexually reoffending, but rather whether they presented a risk of reoffending in any way that could harm the community. The Orders granting each motion were, therefore, terminated, and the matters were remanded to the trial court for further consideration.
Most psychological evaluations submitted in support of a termination motion focus on risk of sexually reoffending. In light of this decision, however, the evaluations must be broader. They cannot be based just on tests that measure the risk of sexual reoffending (such the the STATIC-99, the STABLE-2007 or the ACUTE-2007). To address the concerns in this opinion, the evaluations should also include testing designed to measure the future risk of engaging in criminal and/or violent activity generally. Such psychological tests exist, and should be employed prospectively. The psychologist should also consider the registrant’s complete post-sex offense conviction history including, without limitation, any new offenses and any therapeutic programs the registrant completed (and related reports, if available). Educational achievements, employment history, personal relationships and community involvement should also be discussed. As per the Court’s reasoning, the registrant’s RRAS score should also be considered and discussed in some detail. In essence, the Appellate Division is saying that more than just an assessment of sexually reoffending is required, and the evaluation has to include all of this.
These decisions present new hurdles to termination, but they are not necessarily insurmountable. A more complete set of moving papers supported, in part, by a more thorough psychological evaluation, should address many of these concerns.
James S. Friedman LLC represents registrants who seek to terminate their Megan’s Law registration and Community Supervision for Life/Parole Supervision for Life obligations. If you are seeking to terminate these obligations in any New Jersey county, contact us to discuss your case and your options.
