California Supreme Court ruling makes it easier for prisoners to win parole

In a 4-3 vote, the state high court said the brutality of a convict's crime may not be enough to justify a determination that a prisoner would be a danger to the public.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George, writing for the majority, said that other evidence, such as the inmate's prison record or his or her mental state or demeanor, should be considered in deciding whether the felon posed a safety threat.

The ruling upheld the release of Sandra Davis Lawrence, who spent 24 years in prison for killing her lover's wife in a jealous rage with a potato peeler. The state parole board had approved her release four times since 1993, but three governors, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, overturned the board's decisions.

In denying her parole, Schwarzenegger cited the "exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering" that her crime showed.

An appeals court said his decision was not supported by any evidence that she posed a threat and ordered the state to release her. Today's ruling means that Lawrence, who now lives in Los Angeles, remains a free woman.

The decision modified a 2002 court ruling that said a governor may deny parole if there was "some evidence," including the severity of the crime, that the inmate should remain behind bars.

Today's ruling said the test should also be whether the inmate was currently dangerous.

If there was overwhelming evidence that the inmate was suitable for parole, the heinousness of the crime would not "inevitably" justify a parole denial, Chief Justice George wrote.

Justice Marvin Baxter, joined by two other court conservatives, dissented and accused the majority of distorting earlier rulings in parole cases.

maura.dolan@latimes.com

michael.rothfeld@latimes.com