NC man convicted of child sex crimes taken off sex offender registry. Why he was removed
In our Reality Check stories, Charlotte Observer journalists dig deeper into questions over facts, consequences and accountability. Read more. Story idea? RealityCheck@charlotteobserver.com.
The 61-year-old man who allegedly recorded a 12-year-old boy using a bathroom stall at Bojangles Coliseum in February was once a registered sex offender who was taken off the registry in 2011.
John Hastings Cutter IV, the man who was charged with 11 felony and three misdemeanor peeping charges after police found recordings of minors using bathrooms and locker rooms, was convicted of indecent liberties with a minor in 1999.
Court documents obtained by the Observer provide a snapshot of how Cutter went from the sex offender registry in 1999, to being granted removal in 2011.
Conviction, imprisonment, and probation
In 1997, a jury found Cutter guilty of “taking indecent liberties with children,” according to a court document. The document was redacted, but did say the victim was a neighbor under 16 years old at the time of the incident.
A transcript of plea from 1998 said Cutter pleaded guilty to one count of indecent liberties with a minor, and was sentenced to 16 to 20 months in prison, 60 months of supervised probation, “sex offender conditions,” and no contact with the victim. Cutter was released from probation on Jan. 24, 2004.
On Jan. 27th, 1999, two days after he was convicted, Cutter was registered as a sex offender in North Carolina, his 2009 petition said.
Along with the petition, many letters dated from 2009 were submitted to the court, including letters from Cutter, his wife and friends from their church.
The letters all said something similar: Cutter was a devoted father, a kind person, an active church member, and in no way, a threat to his community or society.
Cutter and his wife described how his conviction harmed his career as a real estate agent and caused financial hardship, how being on the sex offender registry made it difficult for him to spend time with his kids, or do things like pick his kids up from school. The letters pleaded with the judge to grant him termination from the registry.
But the judge presiding over his 2009 petition was not as forgiving, pointing to some incidents that occurred the year prior.
Petitioning for sex registry removal in NC
In North Carolina, according to the General Assembly, while some convicted sex offenders are given a lifetime registration, others are required to register for at least 30 years. Those without the lifetime sentence can petition the court after 10 years to terminate their registration.
Phil Dixon Jr., a professor at the UNC School of Government, told the Observer that petitioners need to, among other things, not have committed a new sex crime that would require registration, and have a judge find that they’re not a current or potential threat to public safety.
“It’s really discretionary at the end of the day,” Dixon said. “The court doesn’t have to ever do it, but they may do it if the requirements are all met.”
Judges also need to determine whether or not the termination complies with federal law, which can be fairly confusing, Dixon said.
Under the Jacob Wetterling Act, which establishes federal guidelines for sex offender registries, convicted sex offenders are tiered based on the severity of their actions.
For example, when Cutter was convicted in 1999 of indecent liberties with a minor — a common charge, Dixon said, — that would usually fall under tier one, the lowest level. Tier one offenses come with a 15-year registration.
Those with a tier one offense can have their registration reduced from 15 to 10 years if they meet certain requirements, such as not being convicted of any subsequent felonies or sex offenses, successful completion of probation or parole, and successful completion of a sex offender treatment program.
Tier two, he said, comes with a 25-year registration. It is for anyone who has already had a tier one offense or does something like distribute child pornography. Tier three is for things like aggravated sexual abuse of a child under 13, or kidnapping a child who isn’t yours. It comes with lifetime registration.
“But there’s a lot of confusion around those classifying our state crimes into the federal tier system because we don’t have a similar system like that,” Dixon said. “We just call it a reportable conviction.”
And often, whether or not a person is granted termination from registration comes down to how the judges handles looking over the different points on the petition. But because it can be confusing, judges may analyze petitions with different levels of scrutiny.
Some judges, Dixon said, may see someone stayed out of trouble for 10 years, committed a “low level” crime, or completed the necessary steps to have their registration reduced from 15 to 10 years under federal law, and be more inclined to grant termination. They may see that reduction under federal law as being enough for compliance.
Other judges may not be as quick to grant termination. Some, Dixon said, may look at a petition “under a microscope,” and go through a deeper level of analysis and scrutiny to determine if granting the petition would comply with federal laws.
First petition fails
While Cutter did not get arrested for a crime that would require sex offender registration between his initial conviction in 1999 and his first petition in 2009, and his release from the registry would comply with federal laws, the judge, Albert Diaz, said Cutter did not prove he was not a current or potential threat to society.
A finding of fact that described Cutter’s case and evidence he submitted for his petition, also described two separate incidents in which Cutter attempted to approach people about taking photos of their kids in the fall of 2008.
The first was in the Dilworth/Myers Park neighborhood of Charlotte. Cutter allegedly drove alongside two women and asked for permission to take photos of their children. Both women refused.
In a separate incident, also in the Dilworth/Myers Park neighborhood, Cutter got out of his car and approached a woman walking her children. He asked to take a photo, but the woman refused. That time, Cutter took a photo without permission.
The document also said Cutter was arrested in 2009 for violating a 2008 Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners ordinance that prohibited sex offenders from entering county parks and recreational areas.
He visited Freedom Park after the ordinance was passed, which resulted in his arrest a year later. Cutter appeared in court after the arrest, but when the State requested a continuance because witnesses were not immediately available, the judge refused and proceeded to arraignment. The judge found Cutter not guilty.
In addition to the character statements, the document also noted that, other than a report of a psychological evaluation completed before Cutter’s 1999 conviction, there wasn’t any other expert evidence stating whether or not Cutter was a current or potential threat to society.
Judge says more proof needed
Despite Cutter being found not guilty of violating the ordinance previously, the 2009 case for the petition said the court found he had in fact violated the ordinance.
It said the State’s primary witness was “detailed and credible regarding her identification” of Cutter, the document said, and that her testimony was corroborated, by someone who confirmed the witness mentioned her encounter with Cutter at Freedom Park later that day.
The document also said that while Cutter did not testify at the hearing, his wife did, and denied he visited Freedom Park that day. However, her testimony was impeached by a Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer who testified that when Cutter was arrested, his wife complained “that all Defendant had done was go to the park.”
The court also found the testimony of the women who said Cutter attempted to, or did take photos of their children to be credible.
“This behavior, while perhaps not criminal, is troubling and provides additional support for the Court’s determination that Defendant should not yet be removed from the registry,” the document said.”
The court denied Cutter’s petition and said he could petition one year later, in 2010, to be removed from the registry. However, he needed to prove he was not a current or potential threat to society by providing “contemporary expert evidence, in the form of psychological evaluation” by someone who specializes in treating sex offenders.
A second petition granted
Cutter did not petition to be removed from the North Carolina sex offender registry in 2010. Instead, he petitioned the court again in 2011.
According to court documents, Cutter provided two psychological evaluations by a licensed psychologist at Blue Ridge Behavior Systems, Inc.
The first was in 1999 and describes Cutter’s mental status, medical history, psychological testing, and diagnostic impressions.
“He attributes initiation of sexual conduct to the victim,” the document said in the mental status portion. “He does acknowledge acceptance of wrongdoing, but appears extremely uncomfortable and distressed with his actions.”
The psychologist, William M. Tyson, recommended Cutter for the Sex Offenders Recovery Program, which was described in documents included with the evaluation.
The program saw collaboration between psychologists, including the one who evaluated Cutter, and the Mecklenburg County Branch of the Department of Adult Probation and Parole.
The program included group sessions where members worked through different levels of treatment. They would, among other things, look at their own history and connect it to their actions.
Tyson, the same psychologist who initially evaluated Cutter and recommended him to the program, once again evaluated him in 2011.
A letter dated Jan. 11 of that year, said Cutter “successfully” completed the program, and was determined to have benefited it “sufficiently.” The risk of further sexual misconduct was reduced, the letter also said.
The psychologist wrote that he administered a Sexual Adjustment Inventory at the time of meeting with Cutter in 2011, and “revealed candor about his offense and continuing struggles with adult sexual functioning. This instrument did not reveal risk factors predictive of further sexual offending.”
He said it was his opinion that Cutter met the criteria required to be removed from the sex offender registry.
On Dec. 9, 2011, Judge F. Lane Williamson, checked off box after box indicating that Cutter had fulfilled the necessary steps of the petition, and that he was entitled to, and granted the “relief requested.”
At the very bottom, Williamson printed and signed his name, officially terminating Cutter’s sex offender registration.
2024 peeping incident at Bojangles Coliseum
Cutter was arrested earlier this year for his alleged actions at a Feb. 24 Charlotte Checkers hockey game involving a 12-year-old boy. A police affidavit described the events that occurred at Bojangles Coliseum and the investigation that followed.
Before finding their seats, a parent, his 11-year-old son, and his son’s 12-year-old friend, went to the bathroom. While the parent and his son waited for the 12-year-old, the parent saw someone place a camera under the stall the child was using. The parent’s son also observed the camera and mentioned it to the parent.
The parent waited for the person, later identified as Cutter, to exit the stall so he could confront him. Cutter denied the allegations when confronted by the parent and walked away.
The affidavit said Cutter could be seen entering and exiting bathrooms in security footage from the venue the day of the event, including entering the bathroom where the incident with the 12-year-old took place, at the time it took place. Police were also able to identify a potential vehicle owned by the suspect using footage. The vehicle was registered to Cutter, which police later observed outside his home.
Bond posted
Two bonds were set for Cutter, according to the Mecklenburg County Sheriff’s Office inmate search page.
One was set at $21,000 for seven felony charges, the other was set at $17,000 for four felony, and three misdemeanor charges.
Cutter, according to court documents, posted both of the bonds through Allegheny Casualty Company, a bond insurance company.
What happens next
Cutter’s case is still pending, so it isn’t yet clear what punishment he’ll face for his actions in February.
Dixon speculated that Cutter could get at least 25 years on the registry, if not a lifetime. He may also have to wear a GPS device around his ankle, which is sometimes required of higher-level offenders.
“Once you’ve committed repeat offenses, depending on the offenses, you can be considered what’s called re-offender,” Dixon said. “They will stick you with satellite-based monitoring for a period. Depending on what it is, it could be up to 50 years, or up to life.”
If the judge determines that Cutter is a high enough risk that the GPS device is necessary, Cutter’s movements will be tracked by a command center to ensure he’s not getting close to a location he’s not supposed to be, such as a school.
“A lot a lot of sex crimes against children occur in the home of the offender, or in the child’s home,” Dixon said. “That (device) doesn’t necessarily prevent that, but it does keep them away from places where minors tend to gather.”
