Opinion
11-P-1179
12-14-2012
JOHN DOE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD NO. 228702 v. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD.
NOTICE: Decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28 are primarily addressed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, rule 1:28 decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28, issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
John Doe appeals from the decision of a judge of the Superior Court upholding a decision of the Sex Offender Registry Board (SORB) requiring that he register as a level two sex offender. Doe contends that SORB did not properly weigh the evidence and that the evidence did not support his classification as a level two offender.
Doe proceeds pro se on appeal. He was represented by counsel before SORB.
In reviewing the hearing examiner's decision, we must ''give due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge' of the board.' Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 151564 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 456 Mass. 612, 615 (2010), quoting from G. L. c. 30A, § 14(7). Doe argues that the unsigned report of his medical expert should have been given greater consideration. The hearing examiner was not obligated to consider the report in the absence of qualification of and testimony by the expert, whose curriculum vitae was not provided and who did not appear at the hearing. See G. L. c. 6, § 178K(1)(f); 803 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 1.18(5)-(6), 1.40(15) (2002). Doe also argues that the victim gave varying accounts of how many times Doe had exposed himself to her, from a low of sixty to a high of one hundred times. Credibility determinations are for the hearing examiner, as is the weight to be given any particular evidence. Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10800 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 459 Mass. 603, 633 (2011).
Finally, Doe argues that the camera that recorded the multiple occasions on which he had exposed himself to the victim was allowed to film long after Doe had been positively identified, and that the so-called 'extended' filming was conducted at the request of the victim's father, a local selectman. This assertion is not supported by facts in the portions of the administrative record made available to us, a complete copy of which has not been provided. Nor has Doe made any reasoned appellate argument as to why the 'extended' filming was improper. For both reasons, this argument fails to rise to the level of reasoned appellate argument. See Adams v. Adams, 459 Mass. 361, 392 (2011). Furthermore, it does not appear from the decision of the Superior Court judge that these issues were raised before either her or SORB. Accordingly, they are waived. Carrel v. National Cord & Braid Corp., 447 Mass. 431, 442-443 (2006).
Judgment affirmed.
By the Court (Trainor, Agnes & Sullivan, JJ.),