Commonwealth v. Y.S., Springfield Juvenile Court No. 14YO0024SP
This case, presents two highly significant issues, potentially affecting a significant number of YAD’s clients. The issues presented by the case are the following:
Issue 1: Under G.L. c. 6, § 178E(f), a judge has the authority to relieve a child adjudicated as a youthful offender for a sex offense of his or her obligation to register as a sex offender if the judge determines that “the circumstances of the offense in conjunction with the offender’s criminal history indicate that the sex offender does not pose a risk of reoffense or a danger to the public.” This judicial authority does not exist, however, if the offender was “sentenced to immediate confinement.” Id. The first question presented by this case is whether a child adjudicated as a youthful offender and committed to the custody of the Department of Youth Services has been “sentenced to immediate confinement” and therefore is ineligible for judicial relief from registration under § 178E(f).
Issue 2: General Laws c. 265, § 47, mandates that any person placed on probation for a sex offense must be monitored with a global positioning system (GPS) device “at all times for the length of his probation.” In Commonwealth v. Hanson H., 464 Mass. 807, 816 (2013), the Supreme Judicial Court held that “mandatory GPS monitoring pursuant to § 47 does not apply to juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent.” In large part, the Court based this holding on its conclusion that mandatory GPS monitoring would conflict with the long-standing “statutory principle that, ‘as far as practicable, [juveniles] shall be treated, not as criminals, but as children in need of aid, encouragement and guidance,’ G. L. c. 119, § 53.” Id. at 808. This case presents an issue the Court explicitly left unresolved in Hanson H.: “whether G. L. c. 265, § 47, applies to juveniles placed on probation after being adjudicated a youthful offender on an indictment brought under G. L. c. 119, § 54.” Id.