{"id":2268,"date":"2020-10-05T13:39:49","date_gmt":"2020-10-05T18:39:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2268"},"modified":"2020-10-05T13:39:49","modified_gmt":"2020-10-05T18:39:49","slug":"commonwealth-v-harding-mass-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/10\/05\/commonwealth-v-harding-mass-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"Commonwealth v. Harding (Mass. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Commonwealth v. Harding, No. SJC-12875 (Mass. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant had previously been convicted of a sex offense and was required to register. Among the requirements of that registration was that he had to register his work address and to not work with children. Appellant was an independent contractor who performed home repairs, but was self-employed. Appellant did register his home address as his work address, but did not register the addresses of his worksites. Additionally, at one of his worksites there was a child present. The lower court found that he violated his probation, and he appealed that finding.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reversed, finding that it would be absurd to require individuals in Appellant’s position to register worksite addresses, and that performing work at a site where a child was present was not working with children, which his probation prohibited.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n