In Re Shaputis
265 P.3d 253
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Petitioner Richard Shaputis murdered his wife Erma in 1987 and was sentenced to 15 years to life with firearm enhancement.
- Board denied parole at several hearings (1997, 2002, 2004); subsequent habeas petitions led to appellate relief.
- In 2006 the Board found parole suitable, but Governor reversed; 2009 parole hearing again denied.
- Petitioner refused to be interviewed by the CDCR psychologist and declined to testify, submitting a written statement instead.
- Court of Appeal majority remanded, prompting California Supreme Court review to define the proper scope of the "some evidence" standard and the role of lack of insight as a parole unsuitability factor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Court of Appeal’s application of the "some evidence" standard correct? | Shaputis: Court erred by substituting its own credibility for the Board's. | Board/Governor: Some evidence supports current dangerousness; deference applies. | Yes; Court of Appeal erred; some evidence supports current dangerousness, deference maintained. |
| Does lack of insight into past conduct properly support parole denial under due process? | Lack of insight is not a standalone proof of current danger; Petitioner disputes its use. | Lack of insight can be probative of current dangerousness when rationally linked to risk. | Yes; lack of insight can support denial if rationally tied to current dangerousness and other evidence. |
| May the Board rely on older, preexisting evaluations when newer evidence exists? | Older evidence should be given less weight or be deemed unreliable. | Board may rely on all relevant evidence, including older reports, when current evidence is lacking. | No; Board may not arbitrarily discard older evidence if it remains probative to current dangerousness. |
| Does the inmate's refusal to participate at a parole hearing bar the Board from evaluating current dangerousness? | Refusal should not limit the Board; other evidence can be used. | Refusal deprives Board of current information; Board may rely on other sources. | No; Board may rely on other information, and refusal cannot be used to suppress the record. |
| What is the proper framework for reviewing parole determinations under the "some evidence" standard? | Review should reweigh evidence to ensure lack of current danger. | Review is highly deferential; focus is on rational nexus between evidence and current danger. | Framework set: deferential review of rational nexus with modicum evidence; no reweighing by courts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenkrantz v. Board of Prison Terms, 29 Cal.4th 616 (Cal. 2002) (established deferential "some evidence" standard)
- In re Lawrence, 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Cal. 2008) (clarified scope: focus on current dangerousness)
- In re Shaputis (I), 44 Cal.4th 1241 (Cal. 2008) (recognized lack of insight as unsuitability factor)
- In re Gaul, 170 Cal.App.4th 20 (Cal. App. 2009) (addressed reliance on outdated evaluations)
- In re Aguilar, 168 Cal.App.4th 1479 (Cal. App. 2008) (rejected sole reliance on old records)
- In re Palermo, 171 Cal.App.4th 1096 (Cal. App. 2009) (reversals when denial based on implausible lack of insight)
- In re Roderick, 154 Cal.App.4th 242 (Cal. App. 2007) (examined lack of insight versus rehabilitation evidence)
- In re Ryner, 196 Cal.App.4th 533 (Cal. App. 2011) ( Lack of insight and its evidentiary value)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard guiding review of evidence)
- In re Sturm, 11 Cal.3d 258 (Cal. 1974) (required written statement of reasons for parole denial)