Opinion ID: 2294072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Adequacy of the Board of Review's Record and Conformity with Statute and Guidelines

Text: Section 11-37.1-16(c) requires the Superior Court to affirm the board of review's proposed risk assessment classification unless it is persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence that the determination on either the level of notification [or] the manner in which it is proposed to be accomplished is not in compliance with this chapter or the guidelines adopted pursuant to this chapter. Mr. Germane contends that the Superior Court committed clear error in concluding that he failed to establish that the board of review's Level III offender designation was erroneous by a preponderance of the evidence. The appellant premises his challenges on two grounds. First, he argues that the board of review failed to comply with its own guidelines in performing its risk assessment in his case. He further contends that the board of review and the reviewing magistrate both overlooked and misconceived relevant evidence while simultaneously crediting unsworn double hearsay which had been explicitly repudiated by the prosecutor who originally handled [appellant's] case. Although certain aspects of Mr. Germane's argument have prompted us to reflect at length, at the end of the day we have become convinced that the decision of the Superior Court should be affirmed. A