In the Matter of Registrant R.H. and T.L. (2024)
In July 2024, in separate matters arising from Gloucester and Camden Counties, the New Jersey Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision in pivotal cases involving juveniles. In the Matter of Registrants R.H. and T.L. analyzed whether the provision of N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f), which prevents termination of Megan’s Law registration requirements if the registrant committed another offense within fifteen years, pertains to juvenile offenders. The Court concluded that this provision does not apply to juveniles adjudicated delinquent, effectively allowing children to seek relief from registration obligations without adhering to the fifteen-year offense-free requirement.
R.H., age 15, sexually assaulted his younger stepbrother and was adjudicated delinquent of aggravated sexual assault. He was sentenced to probation and residential treatment with aftercare.
T.L., also 15, was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated sexual assault by engaging in sexual conduct with his younger sisters and cousin. The children reportedly were playing a game of “truth or dare”. As an adult TL was later convicted of a petty disorderly persons offense for “offensive language” and paid $508 in fines.
Both cases implicated the provision of N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f), which imposes three requirements to be relieved of the sex offender registration obligation under Megan’s Laws.
- 15 years must have elapsed since the sex conviction or release from custody.
- The registrant must be offense free throughout that 15-year period.
- The registrant must demonstrate that he is not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others.
In a case of statutory interpretation, Justice Rabner writing for a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the statute governing a petition to terminate sex offender registration obligation, which required proof that offender had remained offense-free “for 15 years following conviction or release from a correctional facility for any term of imprisonment imposed, whichever is later, did not apply to juvenile offenders adjudicated delinquent” (emphasis supplied). The only issue is future dangerousness.
Especially noteworthy, the Supreme Court did not express any waiting period or time requirement for juveniles to apply for termination. In fact, the Attorney General argued that under the Court’s ruling a juvenile could immediately apply to be terminated following a conviction. The Court predicted such an application would be unsuccessful and quickly waved off the AG’s observation.
To develop a persuasive record of rehabilitation takes time. Judges commonly look to whether an individual has made progress over a period of time 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. Matter of R.H., 258 N.J. 1, 20, 316 A.3d 593, 604, reconsideration denied, 258 N.J. 262, 318 A.3d 362 (2024)
R.H. also effectively makes the leading juvenile registration termination case, J.G., moot. The R.H. Court does not overrule J.G. but declares it’s outcome as dicta.
In J.G. the Court ruled that a juvenile under the age of 14 at time of his offense was improperly subjected to lifetime registration requirement and upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that a juvenile sex offender is not likely to pose threat to safety of others, statutory sex offender registration requirement cannot apply past age 18. In re Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304, 777 A.2d 891 (2001).
So, under the abandoned J.G. rule – if a child committed an offense before their 14th birthday, they could apply for registration termination at age 18. Children who committed offenses after their 14th birthday were held to the adult rules for termination. R.H.and T.L. has mooted that analysis, requiring only proof of public safety.
Joseph A. Del Russo, J.D.