Here’s a suggested WordPress blog post format for the breakdown of the In the Matter of Registrant R.S. case, incorporating the primary keyword, “Megan’s Law in New Jersey,” while maintaining readability and following SEO best practices:  

Recent New Jersey Supreme Court Decision – Megan’s Law in New Jersey 

On July 2, 2024, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided In the Matter of Registrant R.S., 258 N.J. 58 (2024), in which it clarified the requirements for determining when a Megan’s Law registrant, who faces internet publication under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(b)(2), is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court also addressed whether the State may rely on a psychological report prepared for sentencing to establish that the registrant’s conduct was characterized by compulsiveness and repetitiveness. 

Facts and Procedural History in Megan’s Law Case 

The case stems from a 2016 incident when a fourteen-year-old, A.W., reported to the police that her grandfather, R.S., had sexually molested her over two years. R.S. admitted to the abuse and also confessed to inappropriate behavior with his daughter when she was a minor. R.S. was charged with second-degree sexual assault, pled guilty, and underwent a psychological evaluation at the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center at Avenel (Avenel) pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:47-3. The 2017 report from Avenel concluded that R.S.’s criminal behavior was compulsive and repetitive. R.S. was sentenced to four years at Avenel based on this report. 

In 2022, before his release, the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office sought to classify R.S. as a Tier Two offender (moderate risk of re-offense), under Megan’s Law, a classification that includes internet notification. R.S. challenged the classification, arguing that his alleged compulsive and repetitive behavior had not been proven by clear and convincing evidence, as required for inclusion on the internet registry under Megan’s Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(b)(2). The Megan’s Law judge rejected this argument, finding that the 2017 Avenel report was sufficient proof of R.S.’s behavior. The Appellate Division upheld that part of the judge’s decision. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted certification. 

Legal Issues in Megan’s Law in New Jersey 

The Supreme Court addressed two legal issues: (1) when is a Megan’s Law registrant who faces internet publication under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(b)(2) entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the State’s proofs that the registrant’s conduct established a pattern of compulsiveness and repetitiveness; and (2) whether the State may rely on a psychological report that had been prepared for sentencing purposes under N.J.S.A. 2C:47-3, for which the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence, to meet the clear and convincing evidence standard required for Tier classification. 

Evidentiary Hearing Requirement Under Megan’s Law in New Jersey 

The Court held that under N.J.S.A. 2C:7-13(b)(2), a Megan’s Law registrant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the registrant demonstrates there exists a genuine issue of material fact about whether the registrant’s conduct can be characterized by a pattern of repetitive and compulsive behavior. To raise a genuine issue of material fact a registrant must point to specific facts in dispute that challenge the State’s proof. General objections or denials are insufficient. This ensures the registrant has an opportunity to dispute the State’s characterization of their behavior. 

Use of Psychological Reports in Megan’s Law Cases 

The Court also held that for Megan’s Law Tier classification purposes, the State may rely on a psychological report from Avenel, prepared earlier for sentencing purposes pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:47-3. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that Megan’s Law judges must make independent findings as to compulsivity and repetitiveness based on clear and convincing evidence. A judge cannot rely solely on the conclusions of the Avenel report; they must identify specific aspects of the report that support a finding of compulsive and repetitive behavior. A  registrant who raises credible challenges to the report may be entitled to cross-examine the expert who prepared it, though the Court anticipated that such instances would be rare. 

Conclusion: Key Takeaways from Megan’s Law in New Jersey Decision 

The New Jersey Supreme Court vacated the Megan’s Law judge’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Megan’s Law judge was instructed to reconsider whether an evidentiary hearing was necessary and to make more detailed findings on whether R.S.’s conduct met the clear and convincing standard. This ruling reinforces the procedural safeguards for Megan’s Law registrants, especially concerning internet notification, and establishes the limits on the use of prior psychological reports in such cases.  

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.  

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.  

This format not only ensures that the keyword “Megan’s Law in New Jersey” is used effectively but also maintains readability and clarity for the audience.