A
state appellate court has determined the Board of Parole erred in
rejecting a 54 - year - old convict's 2014 request for release when it failed to weigh the significance of the fact that he was 16 when he committed the murder that landed him in prison 37 years ago.
Accused went to cottage of JC with whom she previously cohabited — Accused found JC with victim, another lady, in sauna — Angry words were exchanged between accused and JC — Victim testified that accused pushed her following verbal exchange, as a result victim lost balance and ended up against stove, thereby sustaining serious burns to body — Trial judge accepted victim's evidence that there was some kind of pushing — Accused convicted on one count of assault causing bodily harm, and sentenced to two - year term of probation and $ 1,000.00 fine, and accused was also ordered to provide DNA sample pursuant to s. 487.04 of Criminal Code — Accused appealed — Appeal against conviction dismissed — Although trial judge did not address analytical steps in order, he properly analyzed evidence and concluded that injuries sustained by victim were not accidental and could not have occurred in any other fashion than as
stated by victim — Having provided reasons for accepting victim's evidence, trial judge was entitled to
reject accused's evidence — Trial judge's reasoning, though skeletal, permitted accused and
appellate court to determine how and why finding resulted.
The United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has joined two other federal
appellate circuits in
rejecting the United
State Department of Housing and Urban Development's («HUD») interpretation of § 8 (b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act («RESPA»).