Judge Puglisi concluded with the following in relevant part: While M.L.’s Scale score was properly computed, the judge nevertheless had the obligation to determine whether, given the individual facts of the case, the notification attendant to that tier was appropriate: The final determination of dangerousness lies with the courts, not the expertise of psychiatrists and psychologists. Courts must balance society’s interest in protection from harmful conduct against the individual’s interest in personal liberty and autonomy. The ultimate decision on dangerousness is, therefore, a legal one, not a medical one, even though it is guided by medical expert testimony.
Because Megan’s Law was enacted to enable the public to protect itself against the dangers posed by sex offenders, the “level of notification required for the public to protect itself varies according to what crime the public must guard against. The need for greater or lesser notification is directly related to the gravity of the offense to be re-committed along with the risk that the registrant will re-commit whatever crime the registrant committed before.” For this reason, we reject M.L.’s contention the State’s application in this case was required to be supported by expert testimony. Here, the upward adjustment was not grounded in a reassessment of the level of risk based on a psychological evaluation, but on the type of harm at risk of being inflicted.
We recognize that Megan’s Law is intended to protect the public from recidivism of those convicted of sex offenses, and our Legislature has not enacted similar registration and notification requirements for other types of violent crimes. We note that here, in either of M.L.’s explanations for his motivation, his murder of R.C. was inextricably intertwined with his sexual assault of her. Our decision should not be construed to require Tier III notification in every case where a sexual assault resulted in the death of the victim. This determination must still be made on a case by case, fact-specific basis. Given our deferential standard of review and the particular facts of this case, we are satisfied the judge’s decision here did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
This decision will almost certainly be appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court. As part of its preparation, the defense will examine the origins of the Tier Notification Scale and whether a departure like this was an option when the scale was adopted.
