Court rejects appeal by man who killed wife with shotgun
Law Journals
The state supreme court has upheld the murder conviction and 40-year sentence for man who killed his wife with a shotgun blast in their Windham home.
The Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday unanimously rejected Noah Gaston’s contention that COVID-19 restrictions violated his constitutional rights by preventing him from confronting parties at his sentencing.
Gaston acknowledged killing his wife, Alicia, with a shotgun blast in 2016, but maintained that he thought she was an intruder.
The prosecution allowed the victim’s family and friends to testify by video at the sentencing while Gaston’s family and friends viewed the proceedings from a separate room at the courthouse to allow for social distancing during the pandemic.
“Anyone who wanted to address the court or access the proceeding was able to do so, despite the pandemic restrictions,” Justice Joseph Jabar wrote in the supreme court’s ruling.
The court also rejected Gaston’s argument that the sentence was too long and that the judge wrongly concluded he waived his right to religious privilege when he told a third party about conversations with church members.
The church members, who picked Gaston up at the local police station after his wife died, said he told them he saw a figure he thought was an intruder before he fired. But he also told them that was the only story he could tell if he wanted to see his kids again, according to the police affidavit.
Related listings
-
South Africa’s ex-president should be jailed, argues lawyer
Law Journals 03/25/2021Lawyers for a commission investigating corruption in South Africa have asked the country’s highest court to jail former president Jacob Zuma for two years for failing to cooperate with its probe. The commission of inquiry into high-level graft,...
-
Thai court gives record 43-year sentence for insulting king
Law Journals 01/21/2021A court in Thailand on Tuesday sentenced a former civil servant to a record prison term of 43 years and six months for breaching the country’s strict law on insulting or defaming the monarchy, lawyers said.The Bangkok Criminal Court found the w...
-
Court lifts block on 4 Arkansas abortion restrictions
Law Journals 08/01/2020A federal appeals court on Friday lifted a judge's ruling that has blocked four Arkansas abortion restrictions from taking effect, including a ban on a common second trimester procedure and a fetal remains law that opponents say would effectively req...
Workers’ Compensation Subrogation of Administrative Fees and Costs
When a worker covered by workers’ compensation makes a claim against a third party, the workers’ compensation insurance retains the right to subrogate against any recovery from that third party for all benefits paid to or on behalf of a claimant injured at work. When subrogating for more than basic medical and indemnity benefits, the Texas workers’ compensation subrogation statute provides that “the net amount recovered by a claimant in a third‑party action shall be used to reimburse the carrier for benefits, including medical benefits that have been paid for the compensable injury.” TX Labor Code § 417.002.
In fact, all 50 states provide for similar subrogation. However, none of them precisely outlines which payments or costs paid by a compensation carrier constitute “compensation” and can be recovered. The result is industry-wide confusion and an ongoing debate and argument with claimants’ attorneys over what can and can’t be included in a carrier’s lien for recovery purposes.
In addition to medical expenses, death benefits, funeral costs and/or indemnity benefits for lost wages and loss of earning capacity resulting from a compensable injury, workers’ compensation insurance carriers also expend considerable dollars for case management costs, medical bill audit fees, rehabilitation benefits, nurse case worker fees, and other similar fees. They also incur other expenses in conjunction with the handling and adjusting of workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation carriers typically assert, of course, that, they are entitled to reimbursement for such expenditures when it recovers its workers’ compensation lien. Injured workers and their attorneys disagree.