An inmate decision not to discuss the circumstances of his crime, which resulted in a conviction of a second-degree murder, provided support for the Board of Parole Hearings decision denying his parole based on a lack of insight.
The California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District held that the inmate’s “inability or unwillingness to confront the character issues which caused him to commit the crime provided the Board with some evidence that he was currently dangerous.
Jose Rodriguez killed his employer after he was discovered having an affair with the employer’s wife. Rodriguez chose not to speak to the Board or to the psychiatric evaluator about the crime.
The Board denied parole for three years despite his excellent record while in prison, the absence of any criminal history, and the moderate risk of violence potential assigned to him by the psychiatrist who evaluated him for the parole hearing.
The Board denied parole to Mr. Rodriguez, stating that it could not determine what character traits led him to murder his employer and whether he had addressed those traits during the twenty-one years he had been incarcerated.
The Court of Appeals noted that when an inmate challenges a Board’s decision, “all presumptions favor the truth, accuracy, and fairness of the Board’s decision” and the inmate has the burden of overcoming those presumptions.
The Court agreed that Rodriguez lacked insight into the causative factors of his crime. The Court explained that the Board does not have to accept an inmate’s statements of remorse and accountability but can “examine the inmate’s mental state and attitude about the crime in order to assess whether the inmate has a genuine understanding of the wrongfulness of the crime.
The court also upheld the application of Marsy’s Law to the parole hearing and the minimum parole denial of three years required by the law. The court stated that Marsy’s Law was not a violation of the State or Federal constitutional prohibition against retroactive punishment because the amended statutory language of Marsy’s Law allows inmates to request earlier parole hearings.
The California Supreme Court is reviewing the issue of whether applying the extended parole denial periods under Marsy’s Law retroactively is constitutional. The Supreme Court is also reviewing several cases raising the issue of the proper application of a lack of insight by an inmate to deny parole.
