Boston Lawyer BlogMassachusetts Expands Ability to Prosecute Sex Offenses
On July 24, 2026, Governor Maura Healey held a ceremonial signing for two new Massachusetts laws that seek to strengthen protections for survivors of sexual misconduct. Enacted through the fiscal year 2027 budget, the reforms address two distinct areas in Massachusetts law. One law creates an exception to the criminal statute of limitations when newly available DNA evidence identifies a suspect in a rape case. The other law makes certain sexual contact between adults in positions of authority and people under 18 non-consensual. Together, the laws expand prosecutors’ ability to pursue cases when they obtain forensic evidence and restrict certain defenses previously available to adults accused of sexual conduct involving minors under their supervision.
DNA Evidence and the 15-year Criminal Statute of Limitations
Under the new law rape prosecutions may proceed when DNA evidence identifies a suspect after the standard 15-year limitations period has expired. Massachusetts law generally bars prosecutions for the rape of an adult after 15 years. Although legislators have repeatedly sought to extend that limitations period, opponents, including defense attorneys, have argued that doing so could undermine the rights of the accused. To date, there have been limited exceptions to this statute of limitation. One existing exception is the tolling provision in G.L. c. 277, § 63, which excludes from the 15-year calculation any period during which the defendant was not “usually and publicly” a resident within Massachusetts.
While the new exception to the rape statute of limitations is significant, it does not eliminate the importance of the 15-year window, nor does it address the many other significant evidentiary challenges associated with rape cases. First, if DNA evidence matches to a suspect within the existing 15-year deadline, the new law will not allow prosecutors to rely on the law to file outside of that window. The new provision instead addresses cases in which the identifying DNA match occurs only after the standard limitations period has expired. The law applies prospectively: it will not apply to any case where the 15-year statute of limitations has already passed.
Further, although DNA evidence may help establish physical contact, it may be less probative when the accused asserts consent, a common defense in rape and other sexual misconduct cases. Consent disputes often turn on corroborating evidence and witness credibility, both of which may be difficult to assess more than 15 years after the alleged incident. Digital evidence, including internet activity, mobile-phone data, and digital communications may help illuminate the parties’ prior relationship and provide context for the consent issue. Its admissibility, however, remains subject to Massachusetts’s rape-shield rule. According to Rule 412 of the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence, evidence offered to prove a complainant’s sexual reputation or other sexual behavior is generally inadmissible. A key exception, however, permits evidence of specific instances of the complainant’s sexual conduct with the person accused of the misconduct. Thus, although the new law may preserve a prosecution when DNA identifies a suspect after 15 years, it does not eliminate the evidentiary challenges inherent in proving an older case, particularly when consent is disputed.
Adults in Positions of Trust or Authority
The second new law relates to the ability 16 or 17-year-olds to consent to sexual conduct with adults in positions of authority over them. The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16 years old. That means that anyone younger than 16 cannot legally agree to sexual activity. The new law provides that a child under 18 is also legally incapable of consenting when the accused is a qualifying authority figure, and creates additional criminal liability for prohibited sexual contact by adults serving in such authority roles.
The new criminal law (G.L. c. 265, § 23A1/2) makes it illegal for a mandated reporter who has “custodial or supervisory authority” to have sexual intercourse with a 16 or 17-year-old, or to commit indecent assault and battery on a minor age 14-17, provided that the adult is more than four years older than the minor. Previously, consensual sex acts between such adults and teenagers they supervised was not criminal. The law applies even if the supervisory authority over the child ended before the sexual conduct occurred. Adults who have sexual intercourse with a 16- or 17-year-old who is, or has previously been, under their authority may face up to 20 years in prison under the law. This law applies to doctors and other medical personnel, private and public school teachers and administrators, probation officers, social workers, foster parents, and clergy, among other mandatory reporters.
Conclusion
These two laws expand the definition of certain sex crimes and prosecutors’ ability to prosecute those crimes. Going forward, the expanded statute of limitations law may increase scrutiny on rape kit testing backlogs that have previously been noted in Massachusetts. Indeed, after Bristol County obtained a federal grant to address its rape kit testing backlog in 2022, the Bristol County District Attorney’s office was able to obtain arrests in multiple rape cases that were more than a decade old. Further, G.L. c. 265, § 23A1/2, by removing consent as a defense for qualifying adults in positions of authority, may open the door to prosecutions of adults in positions of authority who have sex with older teens under their supervision, a situation that has gotten attention recently in high profile cases about sexual abuse by teachers. Together, the reforms remove two different barriers to prosecution: the expiration of the limitations period before DNA identifies a suspect, and the availability of consent as a defense in qualifying position-of-authority cases.
If you or someone you know is facing criminal charges, fill out our online intake form or call at (617) 724-6020 to be connected with one of our lawyers.
* Our blogs are written by the firm’s attorneys, without the use of AI or ghostwriters
