The Parole Board’s decision finding petitioner unsuitable for parole was not supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. Petitioner was serving a sentence for murdering his wife during a domestic dispute in which she told him she was having an affair, planned to divorce him, take their children, and leave him destitute. In 2006, the board acknowledged petitioner’s conduct while in prison was “extremely positive,” but it denied parole because of the “terrible” manner in which he killed his wife, and because it was unconvinced he would not react violently again when angry if he were released. In this second grant and transfer from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal overruled the board’s denial of parole. All of the parole suitability factors were favorable to petitioner. And contrary to the board’s assertion, there was no evidence petitioner lacked insight into why he killed his wife. Further, the aggravating nature of the crime, alone, does not provide some evidence of current dangerousness.