Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-16-30026/USCOURTS-ca5-16-30026-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert C. Broadway
Appellant
Court of Appeal 2nd Circuit
Appellee
Office of District Attorney
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30026

Summary Calendar

ROBERT C. BROADWAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY; COURT OF APPEAL 2ND CIRCUIT,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:15-CV-86

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert C. Broadway, Louisiana prisoner # 99478, appeals the dismissal, 

for failure to state a claim, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against William 

R. Jones, the district attorney of Louisiana’s Thirty-ninth Judicial District. 

The complaint alleges that Jones refused to release biological evidence for DNA 

testing and opposed Broadway’s postconviction application for DNA testing, 

thereby violating Broadway’s right to due process. Additionally, the complaint 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30026 Document: 00513874698 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2017
No. 16-30026

2

alleges that the trial court and the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal, 

which were not joined as defendants, violated Broadway’s due process rights 

by not ordering DNA testing. Because the district court dismissed the case for 

failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 

our review is de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).

We reject Broadway’s conclusory assertions that the state courts did not 

provide a fundamentally fair procedure and that the Second Circuit misapplied 

Louisiana law and erred in holding that, given his guilt under Louisiana’s law 

of principals, Broadway failed to establish an articulable doubt as to his 

innocence that could be resolved by DNA testing. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 

F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Ross v. Estelle, 694 F.2d 1008, 1012 (5th Cir. 

1983); FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); 5TH CIR. R. 28.2.2. Taking judicial notice of 

the jury charge from Broadway’s trial, Landry v. Lynaugh, 844 F.2d 1122, 1124 

n.8 (5th Cir. 1988) (taking judicial notice of state-court trial records), reveals 

that the jury was instructed on the law of principals. Furthermore, it is well 

settled under Louisiana statutory law that this doctrine is applicable to rape

charges, see, e.g., State v. Vaughn, 431 So. 2d 358, 364 (La. 1982) (citing LA.

STAT. ANN. § 14:24), including aggravated rape, see, e.g., State v. Rash, 444 So. 

2d 1204, 1205-06 (La. 1984) (“Louisiana has long since abolished the common 

law distinctions between principals and accessories before the fact. . . . As 

such, defendant was subject to conviction on the charge of aggravated rape

. . . .” (citing LA. STAT. ANN. § 14:24)). Accordingly, the DNA testing alone could 

not resolve an articulable doubt as to Broadway’s innocence of aggravated rape. 

Even if the law of principals was inapplicable, Broadway would still fail 

to establish an articulable doubt as to his innocence that could be resolved by 

DNA testing because under Louisiana law, in the absence of scientific evidence, 

testimony alone is sufficient to establish penetration. State v. Rives, 407 So. 

 Case: 16-30026 Document: 00513874698 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2017
No. 16-30026

3

2d 1195, 1197 (La. 1981) (“Despite the absence of scientific evidence of sexual 

intercourse, the testimony of the victim was sufficient to establish ‘sexual 

penetration.’”). Furthermore, Louisiana statutory law “provides that ‘emission 

is not necessary’ and that ‘any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient 

to complete the crime.’” Id. (quoting LA. STAT. ANN. § 14:41). At Broadway’s 

trial, the victim testified that Broadway “got on top of [her]” and made 

penetration, and then she was raped again by Broadway’s accomplice. The 

doctor who examined her on the night of the incident described abrasions 

around her vagina and testified that sexual intercourse had occurred. 

Therefore, even if the DNA testing excluded Broadway as the “source of the 

semen,” as Broadway contends, it would still fall short of resolving doubt as to 

his innocence of aggravated rape. See Rives, 407 So. 2d at 1197; State v. 

Mitchell, 453 So. 2d 1260, 1265 (La. Ct. App. 1984) (affirming aggravated rape 

conviction where “[t]he victim admitted that there was no emission and only a 

slight penetration”). 

Broadway does not show by what authority we may second-guess a state 

court on a matter of state law. See Seaton v. Procunier, 750 F.2d 366, 368 (5th 

Cir. 1985). Nor does he show that the Second Circuit was incompetent to 

adjudicate the issues presented in his state court application or that the 

question of his guilt under the law of principals may otherwise be relitigated. 

See Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 619 (1983). We also reject Broadway’s 

argument regarding executive clemency. See Dist. Attorney’s Office for Third 

Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 67-68 (2007).

Broadway has not shown that his complaint contains “enough facts to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 745 (5th Cir. 

 Case: 16-30026 Document: 00513874698 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/14/2017
No. 16-30026

4

2014). Therefore, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Broadway’s motion to add

attachments to the brief is GRANTED.

 Case: 16-30026 Document: 00513874698 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/14/2017