Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02200/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02200-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raymond M. Herrera
Appellant
State of New Mexico
Appellee

Document Text:

.. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

RAYMOND M. HERRERA, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

Uaiced Scates Conn of Appeals 

Tenth Ci!ruit 

NOV 131980 

«OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 89-2200 

) (D.C. No. 87-1356-M) 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Petitioner appeals the district court's order denying 

petitioner habeas relief, pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2254, from his 

state convictions on three counts of aggravated burglary, five 

counts of false imprisonment, four counts of aggravated assault 

while masked, nine counts of criminal sexual penetration, and two 

counts of attempted residential burglary. Petitioner pursues 

three arguments on appeal: 1) a state witness's remark, made 

during direct examination, suggesting that petitioner had been 

previously prosecuted for a similar crime denied petitioner due 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2200 Document: 010110047890 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 1 
I ' process and a fair trial; 2) statements made by the prosecutor 

during voir dire and closing argument violated due process and 

denied petitioner a fair trial; and 3) the state court erred in 

denying petitioner's motion to suppress evidence based upon an 

unconstitutional photographic identification. we affirm the 

district court's denial of habeas relief. 

The appropriate standard for federal review of a state 

court's procedural and evidentiary rulings is a "narrow one of due 

process, and not the broad exercise of supervisory power." Darden 

v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986)(quoting Donnelly v. 

DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 642 (1974)). Petitioner, therefore, 

will be entitled to federal habeas relief only if the comments 

made by the prosecutor and the state witness "so infected the 

trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial 

of due process." Darden, 477 U.S. at 181 (quoting Donnelly. 416 

U.S. at 643); see also Nichols v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 1250, 1253 

(10th Cir.)(habeas relief under section 2254 will be appropriate 

only if the witness's remark "was so prejudicial in the context of 

the proceeding as a whole that [petitioner] was deprived of the 

fundamental fairness essential to the concept of due process," 

citing Donnelly. 416 U.S. at 642), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 3169 

(1989). 

In his first claim for habeas relief, petitioner asserted 

that a state witness, during direct examination, suggested that 

petitioner had previously been prosecuted for a similar offense. 1 

1 Prosecutor: I also 

State's 

hand you 

Exhibit 

2 

what has been marked as 

11 Herrera and 14 Herrera. 

(Continued on next page) 

Appellate Case: 89-2200 Document: 010110047890 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 2 
~ Defense counsel objected to this remark and moved for a mistrial. 

The trial court sustained the objection and issued a cautionary 

instruction to the jury, but denied the motion for mistrial. 

Because the trial court's cautionary instruction cured any 

prejudice to petitioner, petitioner was not entitled to habeas 

relief on this ground. See Nichols, 867 F.2d at 1254. 

Petitioner challenged, in his second claim for habeas relief, 

comments made by the prosecutor during voir dire and closing 

argument. During voir dire, the prosecutor stated that 

[p]art of the evidence in this case will involve bite 

mark evidence--that is, not just that a victim was 

bitten, but expert witnesses will tend to--we'll bring 

on testimony identifying the person who left the bite 

marks strictly by the bite mark and teeth mold from the 

suspect. 

(Continued from previous page) 

Witness: 

Prosecutor: 

Witness: 

Prosecutor: 

Witness: 

Prosecutor: 

Trial Tape 26. 

Are these [blood and saliva] standards that 

have been supplied to you, or furnished to 

you, as allegedly coming from the defendant, 

Raymond M. Herrera? 

I believe these are standards from another 

case .•• 

Of Raymond M. Herrera? 

were 

on. 

of 85-1029, and I believe that these 

standards that [another analyst] worked 

Did you also work on the standards, however, 

from Raymond M. Herrera, blood and saliva 

standards? 

I believe I--that there was a rape case in '83 

that-uh-Raymond HerreraNol 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-2200 Document: 010110047890 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 3 
Has anybody heard about bite mark 

as in that Bundy case in Florida 

Mengele--when he died some time ago 

experts to Argentina to identify his 

upon teeth marks. 

evidence?--such 

or the Joseph 

and they sent 

remains, largely 

Trial Tape 26. Defense counsel immediately objected to the 

prosecutor's statements and moved for a mistrial. The trial court 

denied the motion for mistrial, but offered to issue a cautionary 

instruction, which defense counsel declined. Id. 

Petitioner asserted that the prosecution's reference to 

petitioner in connection with two well-known criminals so 

prejudiced petitioner that he was deprived of a fair trial. We 

disagree. Because this remark did not "so infect the trial with 

unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due 

process," petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief. 

Similarly, because the prosecution's remarks during closing 

argument were not sufficient to render petitioner's trial 

fundamentally unfair, petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief 

on that claim, either. 2 During his closing argument, defense 

counsel challenged the testimony of the state's expert witnesses 

identifying petitioner as the perpetrator, based upon bite marks 

2 Although petitioner, in his pro se section 2254 petition, 

raised the issue of the propriety of the prosecutor's comments 

made during closing argument, respondent, as well as petitioner's 

subsequently appointed counsel, failed to raise and address this 

issue. Likewise, the magistrate and the district court did not 

address this issue, even though petitioner's counsel, in his 

objections to the magistrate's recommendation, requested the 

parties be allowed to brief that issue. 

The parties have fully briefed this issue on appeal. Because 

we determine this argument lacks legal merit, remand to the 

district court for consideration of this habeas claim is 

unnecessary. 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-2200 Document: 010110047890 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 4 
.. 

' 

found on one of the victims. Trial Tape 58. Defense counsel 

presented the jury with his own analysis of the bite mark evidence 

and the molds taken of petitioner's teeth, concluding for the 

jury, contrary to the testimony of the state's expert witnesses, 

that petitioner's teeth did not fit into the bite marks found on 

the victim. Id. 

In response to defense counsel's challenge to the bite mark 

evidence, the prosecutor, during rebuttal, reiterated the 

testimony of the two expert witnesses identifying petitioner from 

the bite marks found on one of the victims. Then the prosecutor 

challenged defense counsel's own analysis of the evidence: 

•.. you recall [defense counsel] said to compare wax 

molds with teeth marks, ok? That's--you have a perfect 

right to do that. If you want to do that, that's fine. 

But it's a feint if you ·will--trying to get you to do 

something that scientists have been trained all their 

lives to do. He gave you the wrong wax mold. So I'm 

going to have to stop and straighten that out so there's 

no confusion. 

Trial Tape 61. 

The prosecutor then proceeded to explain the exhibits 

concerning the bite marks and the teeth molds and identify which 

molds were those of petitioner and which molds were those of 

another individual petitioner asserted was the real perpetrator of 

the crimes. The prosecutor then stated "[n)ow, I mentioned the 

feint, and maybe I've taken that feint a little bit, because I'm 

over there doing what the doctors do so well •• " Trial Tape 

61. The prosecutor reiterated one of the expert's testimony 

excluding the possibility that the other individual made the bite 

marks, finally concluding "so it rather shoots one of [defense 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-2200 Document: 010110047890 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 5 
y • 

counsel's] smokescreens away--we're not going to have Perry Mason, 

someone else is going to jump out of here, out of the audience and 

say 'no, it's me'--that simply is not real life." These 

remarks, made in response to defense counsel's argument,~ 

United States v. Lowden, 900 F.2d 213, 216 (10th Cir.)(the impact 

of a prosecutor's comment is lessened when that comment is made in 

response to a defense argument), cert. denied, 111 s. Ct. 206 

(1990), were not sufficiently prejudicial to render petitioner's 

trial fundamentally unfair. 

In his third habeas claim, petitioner challenged the 

admission into evidence of items seized pursuant to a search 

warrant in violation of the fourth amendment, asserting the 

warrant was based upon a victim's identification of petitioner 

through an unconstitutionally suggestive photographic array. A 

fourth amendment claim asserting that evidence introduced at trial 

was obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure will 

not be cognizable under section 2254 where the state court 

provided the petitioner with an opportunity for full and fair 

litigation of the fourth amendment claim. Stone v. Powell, 428 

U.S. 465, 494 (1976). 

"Opportunity for full and fair consideration" includes, 

but is not limited to, the procedural opportunity to 

raise or otherwise present a Fourth Amendment claim. It 

also includes (a] full and fair evidentiary 

hearing •••• Furthermore, it contemplates recognition 

and at least colorable application of the correct Fourth 

Amendment constitutional standards. Thus, a federal 

court is not precluded from considering Fourth Amendment 

claims in habeas corpus proceedings where the state 

court wilfully refuses to apply the correct and 

controlling constitutional standards. 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-2200 Document: 010110047890 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 6 
' .. Gamble v. Oklahoma, 583 F.2d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 1978)(footnotes 

omitted). 

Petitioner did not challenge the procedural opportunity 

afforded him in state court to present his fourth amendment claim, 

nor did petitioner assert that he received less than a full and 

fair evidentiary hearing in state court on his motion to suppress. 

Rather, petitioner asserted that the state court failed to make 

"at least a colorable application of the correct fourth amendment 

,constitutional standards." 

Petitioner, however, failed to assert the constitutional 

standards which the state court refused to apply in denying 

petitioner's motion to suppress. Rather, petitioner challenged 

only the state court's . ultimate determination that the 

photographic array was not unduly suggestive. Federal 

consideration of this habeas claim was, therefore, precluded. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CORIAM 

7 

Appellate Case: 89-2200 Document: 010110047890 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 7