On July 1, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the Camden County case of IMO Registrant R.H. The principal issue under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2 concerned whether the fifteen-year offense-free requirement for Megan’s Law termination applies to juveniles who were adjudicated delinquent.
Chief Justice Rabner wrote for a unanimous court in relevant part: Under today’s ruling, juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent are not subject to subsection (f)’s requirement that they must be offense-free for fifteen years. They may apply to terminate their obligations under Megan’s Law before reaching age eighteen. If they do, they must still demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that they are “not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others” to obtain relief.
The State and the Attorney General contend that, under the above interpretation of subsection (f), juveniles adjudicated delinquent could theoretically apply to terminate their registration requirements immediately after the requirements are imposed. They submit that such an outcome is inconsistent with the purpose and operation of Megan’s Law.
To shoulder their burden, registrants must present proofs that satisfy the public safety prong in subsection (f) by clear and convincing evidence. As part of the fact-intensive inquiry the law calls for, offenders generally present psychological evaluations; proof they have successfully completed sex offender treatment, counseling, and therapy; and evidence of employment, among other things.
To develop a persuasive record of rehabilitation takes time. Judges commonly look to whether an individual has made progress over a period both during confinement and afterward in the community. With that in mind, although the offense-free prong of subsection (f) does not apply to juveniles adjudicated delinquent, proof of the commission of a later offense would be relevant to assess whether a person poses a public safety risk.
An application filed immediately after a person’s reporting obligation begins is unlikely to succeed. And a trial judge’s individualized findings on a motion under subsection (f) are subject to appellate review.
It is surprising to see the Court use the term “unlikely” to describe the chances that an immediate application to terminate Megan’s Law requirements would succeed. “Nearly impossible” seems more appropriate. The use of “unlikely” is “likely” to encourage unnecessary litigation.
