Whether the Massachusetts courts' construction of the 'mandated reporter' statute violates due process by failing to provide fair notice and being unconstitutionally vague

QUESTION PRESENTED This case involves an extremely specific statute defining the term “mandated reporter,” which was altered by excision and thus broadened by Massachusetts courts into an unconstitutionally vague, criminal drift-net. Massachusetts, like many states, imposes aggravated penalties for certain sexual offenses if the defendant fits the statutory definition of a “mandated reporter.” That definition identifies forty-one specific job descriptions, including a public or private school teacher, . . . child care worker, person paid to care for or work with a child in any public or private facility, or home or program funded by the commonwealth or licensed under chapter 15D that provides child care or residential services to children. M.G.L. c. 119, § 21 (emphasis added). Here, Massachusetts courts approved a jury instruction that truncated this definition to only a “person paid to care for or work with a child in any public or private facility.” This construction absurdly broadened the reach of the statute while the unaltered statute clearly targets specified professions. Massachusetts rejected arguments that this construction failed to provide fair notice and violated the rule of lenity, rendering the statute vague. Petitioner was employed part time at a private school, with no specific job title. He focused on maintaining a research-grade telescope. The incidents occurred at a club event open to the public, including adults. The complainant was not a student there. Under the broadened statute, the petitioner’s sentence was aggravated to a ten year mandatory minimum. M.G.L. c. 265, § 138B 4%. Would a person of ordinary intelligence have had fair notice that he was subject to the aggravated penalties for mandated reporters?