Opinion ID: 1239209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficency of Evidence

Text: Plaintiff bases his argument as to the insufficiency of the evidence on the proposition that because the parole revocation proceeding involved (and he says principally) the charge against him of assault with intent to commit rape, and it was dismissed, it follows that there was no basis for revoking his parole. In regard to that contention we make these observations. First, we acknowledge the mere fact that there has been an accusation of crime should give rise to no presumption adverse to the plaintiff. However, the reverse of that proposition is also true, the mere fact that such a charge was dismissed, or even that he may not have been convicted upon a trial, does not necessarily mean that there was not sufficient misconduct shown to justify revocation of his parole. This is more especially so when it affirmatively appears, as it does here, that the basis of the dismissal was not on the merits of the case. The plaintiff having presented his case upon the proposition stated above, the full record of the parole revocation hearings is not before us. There is some indication that there was some other misconduct involved, including his drinking. In the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary we assume that the Board of Pardons acted properly, and the burden of showing to the contrary was upon the plaintiff. [4] Upon our review of the record, in the light favorable to the trial court's finding, [5] and what we have said above, we have perceived therein no justification for upsetting the findings of the trial court rejecting plaintiff's contentions that he had been denied proper procedural protections and that the evidence was insufficient to justify revoking his parole. Affirmed. CALLISTER, C.J., and TUCKETT, HENRIOD, and ELLETT, JJ., concur.