New Hampshire governor rejects hearing for Pamela Smart, sentenced to life for husband's 1990 death
Get N.H. Morning Report
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
On Wednesday, Smart wrote to Ayotte and the governor's Executive Council asking for a hearing on commuting her sentence. But Ayotte, a Republican elected in November, said she has reviewed the case and decided it is not deserving of a hearing before the five-member panel.
Advertisement
'People who commit violent crimes must be held accountable to the law,' said Ayotte, a former state attorney general. 'I take very seriously the action of granting a pardon hearing and believe this process should only be used in exceptional circumstances.'
In her letter, Smart said she has spent the last 35 years 'becoming a person who can and will be a contributing member of society.' Calling herself 'what rehabilitation looks like,' she noted that she has taken responsibility for her husband's death.
Advertisement
'I have apologized to Gregg's family and my own for the life taken and for my life denied to my parents and family for all these long years,' she wrote.
Smart's trial was a media circus and one of America's first high-profile cases about a sexual affair between a school staff member and a student. The student, William Flynn, testified that Smart told him she needed her husband killed because she feared she would lose everything if they divorced. Flynn and three other teens cooperated with prosecutors and all have since been released.
The case inspired Joyce Maynard's 1992 book 'To Die For' and the 1995 film of the same name, starring Nicole Kidman and Joaquin Phoenix.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump's budget bill cuts off the green-energy cash spigot — and it's about time
The 'big, beautiful' budget bill passed by the House of Representatives, if enacted in its current form, will eliminate clean-electricity tax credits, including for wind and solar power, starting in 2029. It will require projects seeking to receive those subsidies to begin construction within 60 days of the legislation becoming law, and to start operating by 2028. This is great news for both fiscal sanity and energy reality, both of which have been in short supply for far too long. This 'temporary' tax credit was first enacted in 1992 to help the then-nascent onshore wind and solar industries. Congress always set it to expire years into the future, providing ample opportunities for politicians to extend and enlarge it. They have done so 12 times. The Investment Tax Credit used by offshore wind developers like the Norwegian government-owned Equinor, which is relying on it to build Empire Wind off the coast of New York, has been around even longer — it was first enacted almost a half-century ago. But the ITC was greatly expanded under President Joe Biden's ill-named Inflation Reduction Act, enabling offshore wind developers to qualify for up to 50% of their construction costs. Far from being temporary, these tax credits have become a permanent crutch. As Warren Buffett commented back in 2014, the only reason his MidAmerican Energy company built wind turbines was to capture the tax credits. Wind and solar developers have been allowed to stick taxpayers and ratepayers with the bills, assuming they would continue to do so for many years. Consequently, the proposed rapid demise of these tax credits has ignited howls of outrage from green energy advocates, as well as politicians from both sides of the aisle, who contend it will devastate state economies and destroy thousands of jobs. In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul claimed that transforming the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal into the nation's largest offshore wind port would be 'a large step forward in our commitment to build a sustainable future and foster economic growth.' In New Jersey, where Gov. Phil Murphy's dreams of an offshore wind nirvana have sunk, officials lamented the House bill's passage. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'It's very strange to me, very, very strange,' said Tim Sullivan of the NJ Economic Development Authority. 'I've never seen a situation where elected officials are celebrating something that is killing jobs.' It's not just Democrats: Iowa's Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley has been a consistent defender of wind-energy subsidies. But whether it's tax credits or long-term contracts that force ratepayers to pay above-market prices for these intermittent energy resources, the pro-subsidy crowd ignores economic reality. Sure, subsidizing an industry or an individual firm can 'create' jobs — but those subsidies must be paid for by someone. We pay in the form of soaring electricity rates. In New York, residential customers paid an average of over 24 cents per kWh last year, 50% higher than the US average and 25% percent more than they paid in 2020. Commercial customers, including thousands of small businesses, also paid rates 50% higher than the rest of the country. It's basic economics that, if you are forced to pay more for electricity, you have less money to spend on everything else. Whether it's households forced into energy poverty or businesses that cannot afford to invest and expand, the adverse effects of high-priced electricity ripples through the entire economy. Moreover, the subsidized jobs the green-energy advocates and their political enablers wish to create are hugely expensive. Over the life of an offshore wind project, including the now-greenlit Empire Wind, the average costs are over $1 million per job — each and every year. That's obviously far more than any of the project's workers will be paid. It's an overarching economic fallacy to justify any green-energy subsidy on the promise of new jobs — because an investment's economic value isn't measured by the number of jobs it creates. The purpose of investing in electricity-generating resources and infrastructure is to ensure that our power supplies are adequate, reliable and affordable. If job creation was the goal, the most valuable energy resources would be the most labor-intensive ones. Subsidy advocates ignore these basic economic realities. And campaign contributors are the loudest voices in many politicians' ears. Eventually, however, reality always wins. Senators would be wise to remember that as they debate the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' in the coming weeks. Jonathan Lesser is a senior fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Country pessimistic about both parties, see democracy being tested, new poll finds
Country pessimistic about both parties, see democracy being tested, new poll finds Show Caption Hide Caption Trump calls Elon Musk a 'fantastic guy' amid drug use allegations President Trump said he didn't know about Elon Musk's alleged drug use and backed the billionaire's cost-cutting. Over 80% of Americans said that democracy is at least being tested while neither party is seen as being able to get things done in a CNN poll released June 1. The poll found that 49% of respondents believe that American democracy is under attack and 36% believe that American democracy is being tested. Respondents held a dim view of both parties, even as 58% said that the government should do more to solve problems – a record high in over 30 years of the network's polling. The network reported that respondents were split on if either party represented the middle class, with a third saying neither did. Republicans saw a seven-point advantage over Democrats on handling the economy, the narrowest lead on the issue in the polling since 2022 and lost over half of their advantage on immigration, falling from a 14-point lead in November 2023 to a six-point lead in the new poll. The poll was conducted by SSRS online or by phone from May 5-26 among 2,539 adults across the country using a combination of online and telephone interviews. Here's what else the poll found. Neither party seen as having strong leadership, able to get things done When asked if a party had strong leaders, 40% of respondents agreed with that description for Republicans and only 36% said that they could get things done. The survey was even more pessimistic for Democrats, as only 16% of respondents said they had strong leaders and 19% said they could get things done. The response of neither won both questions with 43% and 44% respectively, despite 81% of respondents saying they saw "important differences" between the two parties. The network reported that the gap in favorability was fueled by partisan views with Republican-aligned respondents 50 points likelier than Democratic-aligned respondents to say that their party has strong leaders while the question of which party could get things done elicited a 36-point difference between partisans. Independents were particularly pessimistic about the parties, with 76% saying that neither party had strong leadership nor could get things done. Trump approval rating: Recent polls mostly steady through late May Diversity seen as positive by wide majority Just under three-quarters of respondents said that growing racial diversity does "more to enrich than threaten American culture." Objection to that view, held by 27% of respondents, was concentrated among Republican-aligned men with 45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents calling diversity a threat – a 25% jump from 2019, according to the network. Democrats held an eight-point advantage on LGTBQ issues in the poll and a seven-point margin on race issues. Respondents saying that abortion should be legal in all circumstances hit a record high at 36% in the poll. Thirty-five percent of respondents said that abortion should be legal in "a few" circumstances while 15% said that the procedure should be legal in most circumstances.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Illinois lawmakers pass $55B budget with new taxes, no transit or Bears stadium funding
The Brief State lawmakers passed a $55 billion budget just before the midnight deadline over the weekend. The budget includes new or increased taxes on sports betting and tobacco products. Lawmakers did not pass plans to address a fiscal cliff facing the state's public transit system or funding for a new Bears stadium. SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - State lawmakers passed the budget for the next fiscal year, meeting their midnight deadline. Leaders worked late into the evening with just minutes to spare last night to pass the $55 billion budget that now goes to Gov. JB Pritzker's desk. What they're saying The governor said in posts on X, the social media site, that he will sign it. "I'm grateful to Speaker Welch, President Harmon, the budget teams, and all the legislators and stakeholders who collaborated to shape and pass this legislation. I look forward to signing my seventh balanced budget in a row and continuing to build a stronger Illinois," Pritzker wrote. The budget includes just over $1 billion in new taxes and revenue changes, Capitol News Illinois reported. Republican lawmakers in the minority blasted the Democratic majority for the increase in taxes. "Speaker Welch said the quiet part out loud: tax and spend Democrats are thriving in Illinois…at the expense of Illinois families," said House Minority Leader Tony McCombie in a statement. "Rather than pursuing meaningful structural reforms to secure our state's future, Democrats chose to prioritize politician pay raises, steal from the rainy-day fund, and funnel money into their own pork projects." By the numbers The new taxes include: A 25-cent tax per wager for sports betting licensees' first 20,000 wagers and 50 cents per wager after that Increase in tobacco products from 36% to 45% Subjecting businesses that move profits to other countries to the state's corporate income tax Republican lawmakers and business entities like the Illinois Chamber of Commerce were critical of the new taxes. "This breaks the commitment to avoid new taxes and sends the wrong message to employers across the state," the Chamber said in a statement. Lawmakers also decided to cut a controversial program to provide health insurance for more than 30,000 noncitizens between the ages of 42 and 64, which would save about $330 million. A $110 million program for seniors will remain in place. The proposal to cut the program had come under fire from Latino lawmakers and activist groups, as well as progressive groups. The new budget will also not add $43 million to a property tax relief program. The $307 million in mandated additional K-12 education funding was approved. The final budget plan was passed without some key issues addressed, including added funding to prevent a fiscal cliff facing the region's public transit agencies and funding for a new Bears stadium. The transit funding was an especially big issue as the Regional Transit Authority faces a $770 million shortfall in 2026 and warned of possible significant service cuts as pandemic funding ran dry. Transit officials and union groups were pushing for lawmakers to approve more funding to avoid such a cliff. The Labor Alliance for Public Transportation said in a statement: "Last night's failure to pass a comprehensive transportation bill to avert a fiscal cliff jeopardizes Illinois transit systems with expected cuts, massive lay-offs, and service disruptions for the Chicago Transit Authority, Pace, and Metra. As the General Assembly adjourns with neither reform or revenue, transit riders and workers alike are left concerned about the future of our communities."
