Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02025/USCOURTS-ca10-92-02025-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sammy Leroy McMurray
Appellant
Robert J. Tansy
Appellee

Document Text:

F 1-, . ·1· D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL~nited States~o~ q! AP!>b~b 

Tenth Cir.::ui · 

SAMMY LEROY McMURRAY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

vs. 

ROBERT J. TANSY, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AUG O 7 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKEE 

Clerk 

No. 92-2025 

(D . C. No. Civ.-89-947-SC) 

(D.N.M) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

Petitioner Sammy Leroy McMurray appeals from the denial of 

his 28 u.s.c. S 2254 petition. Mr. McMurray was convicted in a 

New Mexico state court on rape charges on April 22, 1985, after a 

trial by jury. He now challenges the convictions, contending 

insufficiency of the evidence. The district court, adopting the 

findings and recommendations of a magistrate, dismissed the 

petition and denied a certificate of probable cause to appeal. 

In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, "the 

* 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. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 92-2025 Document: 010110276706 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 1
relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the 

light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). 

A federal court cannot grant habeas relief unless this question is 

answered in the negative. 

Mr. McMurray's conviction was based primarily on the 

identification testimony of the victim, and he now centers his 

argument on inconsistencies in her pretrial statements to police 

and medical personnel and inconsistencies between her trial 

testimony and that of a defense witness. He also points to her 

initial description of her assailant as a 5'8" to 5'10" black man; 

Mr. McMurray is a 6'4" black man. We do not find the victim's 

testimony as inherently incredible, however. See Tapia v. Tansy, 

926 F.2d 1554, 1562 (10th Cir.)("We may disregard testimony on 

review only if we find that the witness is inherently 

incredible."), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 115 (1991). The victim 

told the police that the assailant was one of her neighbors whom 

she had seen almost daily for the previous five years, and she 

immediately and unequivocally identified her neighbor Mr. McMurray 

when police brought her to his home. Furthermore, she stated that 

her assailant had worn a grey fuzzy sweater, a description which 

matched a sweater retrieved from Mr. McMurray's home. The minor 

inconsistencies in the victim's statements to police and medical 

personnel, most of which revolved around whether the assailant 

actually penetrated her, and the inconsistencies between her 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-2025 Document: 010110276706 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 2
description of the assailant's facial hair and the defense 

witness' description of Mr. McMurray's facial hair on the day of 

the rape, were matters within the province of the jury. See id. 

at 1562. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution, we hold that a rational trier of fact could find 

beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes charged 

against Mr. McMurray. The certificate of probable cause to appeal 

is GRANTED, see 28 u.s.c. § 2253, and the judgment of the 

district court is AFFIRMED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-2025 Document: 010110276706 Date Filed: 08/07/1992 Page: 3