The State appealed trial court orders terminating Megan's Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23, and Community Supervision for Life (CSL), N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4, obligations applicable to S.O. and G.N. (collectively, Registrants). The court vacated the trial court orders and remanded both matters for further proceedings.
These appeals raised the novel issue of whether the "public safety prongs" in the termination provisions of Megan's law, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-2(f), and CSL, N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6.4(c), require trial courts to consider all subsequent non-sexual and sexual offenses when determining whether a registrant poses a threat to the safety of others. The court concluded the public safety prongs contain ambiguous language, since they are susceptible to more than one interpretation. Based on this ambiguity, the court applied principles of statutory construction, which required an examination of extrinsic evidence. In reaching a decision, the court considered the legislative intent, legislative history and prior decisional law and interpreted the public safety prongs to require a trial court to determine whether a registrant established they were not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others, sufficient to warrant termination of their Megan's Law and CSL obligations, without confining its analysis to the threat of sexual re-offense.
The court concluded, when evaluating whether the public safety prongs have been satisfied, trial courts shall engage in a holistic assessment of the individual registrant, considering the factual predicates for subsequent non-sexual and sexual offenses, a registrant's tier classification, Registrant Risk Assessment Scale (RRAS) score, any applications to modify their tier classification, expert psychological evaluations, evidence of therapeutic programs and counseling attended, and any other relevant proofs.