Trio of New Jersey Supreme Court Decisions Significantly Impact Megan’s Law

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued three decisions that dramatically change how Megan’s Law applies to Juveniles and how adult offenders are classified for registration and notification purposes in New Jersey 

On the first two days of July, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued three decisions that dramatically revamped the rules for Megan’s Law.  The first two decisions effectively eliminated the 15-year “offense free” waiting period for juveniles to be relieved of their registration and notification obligations under Megan’s Law.  The third decision clarified the Government’s obligation to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that certain offenders’ conduct is characterized by “repetitive and compulsive” behavior prior to requiring internet notification and the procedures in that process.  What does all that mean? Let me explain.  

The 15-Year “Offense Free” Waiting Period No Longer Applies to Juveniles 

The New Jersey Supreme Court issued two rulings with respect to termination of Megan’s Law for registrants who were initially placed on Megan’s Law as juveniles.  However, because both cases addressed largely identical issues, they can be read in concert with each other.   

For most offenders, Registration and Community Notification required by Megan’s Law is not a lifelong imposition.  The law allows offenders to be relieved of their obligations if (1) the offender remains offense free (no convictions) for 15 years, and (2) a court finds by “clear and convincing evidence” that the offender is “not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others.”  This rule applied to juveniles who were adjudicated delinquent (commonly referred to as a juvenile “conviction”) of a crime requiring Megan’s Law.   

In the first case, In the Matter of Registrant R.H., the Court addressed the question of whether the 15-year waiting period applied to juveniles.  The case actually concerned two defendants: R.H. and T.L.   

R.H., a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent in 2009 for sexual crime requiring his supervision pursuant to Megan’s Law.  After more than ten years without committing an offense, he moved to terminate Megan’s Law, arguing that the 15-year waiting requirement did not apply to juveniles.  T.L., also a juvenile, was adjudicated delinquent in 2005 for a sexual crime and also placed on Megan’s Law.  He did not remain offense free – and was convicted of Disorderly Conduct in 2015.  The court rejected his argument, nearly identical to the argument advanced by R.H., that the 15-year waiting period and 15-year “offense free” requirement did not apply to registrants who were adjudicated delinquent as juveniles. 

In holding that the 15-year waiting and “offense free” requirement did not apply to registrants who were placed on Megan’s Law as juveniles, the Court largely relied upon the plain text of the State.  While the Megan’s Law Statute does allow for juveniles adjudicated delinquent to be placed on Megan’s Law, the “termination” section of the statute requires the person to “not commit[] an offense within 15 years following conviction or release from a correctional facility…”  The Court found the use of the word “conviction,” and the absence of the phrase “adjudicated delinquent,” as persuasive evidence the legislature did not intend the 15-year requirement to apply to juveniles.   

The issue of timing – when a juvenile can apply to be terminated from Megan’s Law – was not specifically articulated by the Court.  Indeed, the Attorney General argued that under the Court’s ruling a juvenile could immediately apply to be terminated following a conviction.  While the Court predicted such an application to be unsuccessful (“[i]n reality, an application filed immediately after a person’s reporting obligation begins is unlikely to succeed”) the Court did not articulate any specified waiting period.   

The second case, In the Matter of Registrant J.A., largely echoed the issue and holding R.H. in that the Registrant was convicted of a sexual crime as a juvenile, and then a subsequent non-sexual crime as a juvenile, and then remained offense free for approximately 20-years.  His motion to be terminated from Megan’s Law was denied because of the subsequent adjudication following his initial sexual adjudication.  The Court reiterated the holding in R.H. and held that he was eligible for termination because the 15-year “offense free” waiting period did not apply to his juvenile adjudication.   

Internet Registry Procedures Clarified 

Since its enactment in 1994, Megan’s Law has undergone multiple revisions.  At its inception, registrants were not published on the internet, but following an Amendment to the State Constitution in 2000, the Legislature authorized the publication of certain sex offenders online, available to the public. 

When a sex offender is initially placed on Megan’s Law, a judge, aided by the Registrant Risk Assessment Scale, must assign an offender a designation (known as a “tier”) of either “high,” “moderate” or “low” risk to reoffend.  When initially enacted, the internet notification law only permitted “high” and certain “moderate” risk offenders to be published.  In 2014, the law expanded internet notification to all manner of offenders whose offense conduct was deemed to be “repetitive and compulsive” at the time of sentencing.  Following Federal Litigation and a consent agreement, the State must prove to the “tiering” judge that the conduct was “repetitive and compulsive” by clear and convincing evidence. 

The final case, In the Matter of Registrant R.S., concerned an offender’s placement on the Megan’s Law Internet Registry where the State relied solely upon a psychological report produced for sentencing (colloquially referred to as the “Avanel Report” wherein an expert evaluated the offender prior to sentencing), not the tier hearing, where the burden of proof is merely preponderance of the evidence.  The case also addressed the circumstances wherein a registrant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the conclusion of that report.   

After examining the history of Megan’s Law and the relevant statutory language, the Court held that “a Megan’s Law registrant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the registrant demonstrates there exists a genuine issue of material fact about whether the registrant’s conduct can be characterized by a pattern of repetitive and compulsive behavior.”  However, the Court noted that these hearings will be “rare” and further held that, “[t]o raise a genuine issue of material fact, the registrant must interpose more than general denials, self-serving assertions, bald declarations, or vague and conclusory claims.”  Rather, “[o]bjections to the State’s characterization that a registrant’s conduct constituted repetitive and compulsive behavior must be rooted in some reliable or credible evidence.”  Given this strong language from the Court, it is difficult to imagine a registrant successfully obtaining an evidentiary hearing absent (1) psychological opinion that is adverse to the sentencing evaluation; or (2) objective facts that so materially discount the sentencing evaluation as to cause material doubt as to its ultimate conclusion.  The Court went on to permit the State to utilize the sentencing evaluation at the tier hearing but require the judge to make “independent findings” as to compulsivity and repetitiveness.   

New Issues 

The Court’s holdings in both juvenile cases represent an immediate and groundbreaking avenue of relief for those individuals who were placed on Megan’s Law in a juvenile matter.  Rather than waiting 15-years (or until the age of 18 for those placed on Megan’s Law before the age of 14), a registrant may apply to be terminated at any time.   

Three considerations should be carefully considered, though.  First, there may be a negative collateral consequence depending upon the view of the prosecutor.  For example, this shift may result in a greater number of juveniles being subject to involuntary juvenile waiver to adult criminal court.  If the prosecutor holds a belief that a juvenile should be subject to Megan’s Law for the minimum 15-year period, the State may move the case to Adult Criminal Court to accomplish that goal.   

Second, while the waiting period for individuals adjudicated delinquent in Family Court may have been eliminated, trial courts will certainly be mindful of the Supreme Court’s language that “[t]o develop a persuasive record of rehabilitation takes time.”  A reflexive and immediate application to terminate Megan’s Law will almost certainly be met with strong resistance from the Court until a body of treatment and rehabilitation is developed in the record.  While the trial courts may take time to establish a “normal” time period before which the judge will meaningfully entertain a motion to terminate, the Court’s decision certainly makes clear that any such application must be supported by credible evidence that the registrant is not a danger to the public.   

Finally, this may be a situation where impacted litigants will want to “strike while the iron is hot.”  The Court’s holding in R.H. was largely dictated by the plain language of the Legislature, and the Legislature can always change the plain language.  To be sure, amending the relevant statute will be a topic of discussion and it may behoove registrants to apply immediately upon being eligible to avoid any future legislation that amends the language making clear that juveniles adjudicated delinquent fall within the Statute. 

With respect to the Internet Registry, it is important to note that while the Court plainly held the Megan’s Law Tier Judge must make an independent determination as to whether an offender’s conduct is characterized by repetitive and compulsive behavior, the Court is fully permitted to rely upon the sentencing record, including the “Avenel Report.”  As such, it is critical to develop an adequate record at sentencing and contest any facts or conclusions that may support that finding at a later juncture.  

Navigating Megan’s Law in New Jersey 

Understanding New Jersey’s Megan’s Law requirements and the changes in the law is essential for anyone facing Sex Crimes charges or who has been convicted of a sex crime in New Jersey. Get legal counsel from an experienced lawyer if you or someone you know is dealing with a Sex Crime in New Jersey. Expert legal assistance can offer direction and representation to help address these intricate legal issues. 

For experienced legal assistance in navigating New Jersey Megan’s Law and Sex Crime laws, contact Rosenberg | Perry & Associates. Our attorneys and team can offer valuable insights and representation to protect your rights and achieve the best resolution possible. Don’t hesitate to reach out for the professional help you need in these sensitive and serious cases.