# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 19 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Luc ky I. Irom

ua nya

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

- App el la nt

v.

Sco tt Frak es , Direc to r, Neb ras ka Depa rtment o f Co rrec ti on al Serv ic es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt - App el le e

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 10, 2 01 7

Fil ed : Au gu st 7, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Luc ky Iro m

ua nya ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t's de ni al o f h is 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 1

pe ti ti on for ha be as co rp us rel ie f. W e affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Jo se ph F. Bat ai ll on , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.I. BACKGRO UND

Th e f ol lo win g fact s were se t fo rth by th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t an d a r e

pr es um ed to be co rre c t un de r ou r st an da rd of rev ie w. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (e).

Iro m ua nya was at a co ll eg e ho us e pa rty in Lin co ln

, Neb ras ka

, in Apr il 20 04 whe n a

di sp ut e aro se ov er an al le ge dl y s t o l e n s ho t gl as s co ll ect io n. A ho us e res id en t

co nf ro nt ed Iro m

ua n ya a n d Iro m

ua nya's fri en d whe n th ey so ug ht to le av e th e pa rty.

Sh e as se rte d th at no on e was le av in g th e pa rty un ti l th e sh ot gl as se s were reco ve red

. A sh ov in g m at ch en su ed be twee n he r bo y fri en d, Nol an Je nk in s, an d Iro m ua nya,

whe rei n Iro m

ua nya pu nc he d Je nk in s an d th e p a r ti es were se pa rat ed

. Je nk in s was

s u bs eq ue nt ly in fo rm ed th at Iro m ua nya ha d no t ta ke n th e sh ot gl as se s, a n d

ap pr ox im at el y fiv e m in ut es la te r, Je nk in s walk ed ba ck to ward Iro m ua nya, os te ns ib ly

to sh ak e ha nd s an d se tt le th e m at te r, bu t Iro m ua nya a g a i n sh ov ed Je nk in s whe n

Je nk in s go t cl os e to hi m

. Ano th er sc uf fle en su ed

, b u t th is ti m e Iro m ua nya to ok a

ha nd gu n fro m hi s pa nt s an d fir ed a sh ot

. The bu ll et hi t Je nk in s, bu t tra ve le d th ro ug h

hi m an d hi t Jen na Co op er, ano th er resi de nt at th e ho us e whe re t he pa rty to ok pl ace.

Co op er su bs eq ue nt ly di ed of he r in juri es

. Iro m

ua nya le ft th e sc en e bu t was arre st ed

la te r th at ev en in g. In a vi de ot ap ed st at em en t t ak en th at ev en in g (wh ic h was sh own

to th e jury d ur in g tri al ), Iro m ua nya i nf or m ed th e po l i c e t h a t h e di d in te nd to sh oo t

th e gu n bu t di d no t in te nd to hi t an y on e, an d th at he in st ead at te m pt ed to sh oo t to th e

si de of Je nk in s to sc are hi m

. St at e v. Iro m ua nya (Iro mu a n ya I ), 71 9 N.W .2d 26 3,

27 3- 77 (Neb . 20 06 ).

The pr im ary is su e at Iro m ua nya's tri al was whe th er th e st at e co ul d pr ov e

se co nd -d eg ree m

ur de r or on ly m an s l a u g ht er fo r Co op er's de at h an d th e at te m pt ed

ve rs io ns of th os e cri m es f or Je nk in s' sh oo ti ng

. Iro m ua nya req ue st ed th at th e tri al

co ur t in cl ud e "m al ic e" as an el em en t of th e se co nd -d eg ree- m ur de r in st ru ct io n (wh ic h

was de cl in ed ) an d al so pr op os ed hi s own th eo ry -of -d ef en se ins tru ct io n, whi ch sp el le d

ou t hi s as se rti on fro m th e ta pe d st at em en t th at he di d no t in te nd to sh oo t an y on e bu t

on ly i nt en de d to sc are th em

. The co ur t de cl in ed th is req ue st , f i n d i ng th at th e ot he r

-2

-in st ru ct io ns ad eq ua te ly co nv ey ed Iro m ua nya's th eo ry o f de fen se

. Iro m ua nya

ap pa ren tl y req ue st ed a se lf- de fen se in st ru ct io n, whi ch th e co ur t al so de cl in ed to gi ve

.

On th e at te m

pt ed se co nd -d eg ree- m

ur de r ch arg e (in vo lv in g Je nk in s)

, th e co ur t

in s t r u c t e d th e jury th at it co ul d fin d Iro m ua nya ei th er gu il ty or no t gu il ty of th e

ch arg e, bu t it di d no t in cl ud e an op ti on fo r fin di ng Iro m ua n y a gu il ty of a le ss er

in cl ud ed of

fen se of at te m

pt ed m an sl au gh te r. Nor di d th e at te m pt ed se co nd -d eg reem ur de r in st ru ct io n in cl ud e an y in st ru ct io ns ab ou t lack of pro vo cat io n. W it h reg ard

to th e ch arg e o f s e c o n d -d eg ree m ur de r (o f Co op er), th e co ur t di d in cl ud e

m an sl au gh te r as a le ss er in cl ud ed of fen se , a nd in cl ud ed in st r u c t i o n s ab ou t su dd en

qu arre l pr ov oc at io n, bu t it di d so in a "s te p" in st ru ct io n– m ean in g th at th e jury wou ld

on ly co ns id er m an sl au gh te r an d su dd en-q ua rr el pr ovoc at io n if it fo un d Iro m ua nya no t

gu il ty of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r an d pr oc ee d e d to th e ne xt pa rt of th e in st ru ct io n.

Dur in g de li be r a t i o n s, an ad di ti on al in st ru ct io n was gi ve n aft er th e jury po se d a

qu es ti on ab ou t th e effe ct of a "s ud de n qu arre l" on at te mpt ed se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r.

The co ur t in st ru ct ed th e jury th at it co ul d no t co ns i d e r " s u dd en qu arre l" whe n

de ci di ng gu il t on th e ch arg e of at te m pt ed se co nd -d eg ree m

ur de r. The jury ul ti m at el y

co nv ic te d Iro m

ua nya of th e at te m

pt ed se co nd -d eg ree m

ur de r o f Je nk in s, se co nd

de gr ee m ur de r of Co op er, an d bo th weap on s ch arg es , an d he was se nt en ced to an

ag gr eg at e p ris on ter m

of 7 0 years t o l ife im

pr is on m en t. Id . at 2 73

.

The N e br as ka Su pr em e Co ur t affi rm ed Iro m ua nya's co nv ic ti on on di rect

ap pe al

. In th at ap pe al

, Iro m ua nya arg ue d th at th e tri al co ur t erre d in fai li ng to in st ru ct

th e jury on m al ic e as an el eme nt of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r an d fai le d to gi ve hi s

req ue st ed se lf- de fen se in st ru ct io n. Id

. at 28 6. The Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t he ld th at

be cau se "[m ]alic e is no t an el em en t of se co nd de gr ee m ur de r

. . . th e d is tri ct co ur t .

. . di d n ot err i n re fu si ng to in st ru ct th at it was." Id. at 28 9 (cit in g Neb. Rev. Stat

. §

28 -3 04 (1 ); St at e v. Bu rli so n, 58 3 N.W .2d 31 (Neb

. 19 98 )). Th e co ur t fu rth er he ld

th at th ere was "n o ev id en ce in th e reco rd to su pp or t a reas on ab le an d go od fai th be li ef

-3

-th at Iro m

ua nya was th reat en ed wit h de at h or se rio us bo di ly ha rm at th e ti m e he fir ed

th e ha nd gu n" an d a se lf- de fen se in st ru ct io n was th eref or e no t warra nt ed

. Id

. at 29 0.

Dur in g st at e po st co nv ic ti on pr oc eed in gs , Iro m ua n ya ch al le ng ed hi s tri al

co un se l's effe ct iv en es s fo r fai li ng to pr op erl y ch al le ng e th e ju ry in st ru ct io ns

. On

ap pe al of th e de ni al of po st co nv i c t i o n rel ie f, th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t ag ai n

de ni ed rel ie f. St at e v. Iro m ua nya (Iro m

ua nya II), 80 6 N.W .2d 40 4 (Neb

. 20 11 ). As

rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

, af t e r I r o muan y a I bu t be fo re Iro m ua nya II, th e Neb ras ka

Su pr em e Co ur t de ci de d S ta te v. Ro na ld Sm it h, 8 06 N.W .2d 38 3, 3 94 (Neb . 20 11 ), 2

whi ch ov erru le d an earl ie r cas e ho ld in g th at m an sla ught er w as an un in te nt io na l cri m e,

an d he ld th at th e of

fen se of m an sl au gh te r was an in te nt io na l ki ll in g wit ho ut m al ic e,

u p o n a su dd en qu arre l. In Iro m ua nya II, th e co ur t he ld th at co un se l was no t

in effe ct iv e fo r no t an ti ci pa ti ng th is ch an ge in th e la w, an d al so he ld th at th e st at e was

no t co ns ti tu ti on al ly req ui red to pr ov e a la ck o f s u dd en -q ua rrel pr ov oc at io n fo r th e

at te m pt to cau se Jen ki ns ' de at h. 8 06 N.W .2d at 4 35

.

Iro m ua nya fil ed th e cu rren t 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 pe ti ti on fo r ha be as co rp us rel ie f

in 20 12

, rai si ng an in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l cl ai m fo r co u n s e l's de fic ie nt

pe rfo rm an ce du rin g pl ea ne go ti at io ns an d fo r fai li ng to ob ject to th e su dd en -q ua rrel

ju ry in st ru ct io n as a st ep in st ru ct io n fo r se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r. Iro m

ua nya al s o

al le ge d th at th e fo ll owi ng du e pr oc es s vi ol at io ns oc cu r r e d d u rin g hi s tri al : th at th e

tri al co ur t fai le d to in cl ud e m an sl au gh te r as a le ss er in cl ud ed o ffen se of se co nd

de gr ee m ur de r; fai le d to in st ru ct th at th e pr os ecu t o r m us t pr ov e th e ab se nc e of a

su dd en qu arre l be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t; an d fai le d to pr op erl y in st ru ct th e jury on

th e di st in ct io n be twee n "i nt en t to ki ll " a n d " i n t en t to ki ll res ul ti ng fro m a su dd en

qu arre l."

The re are two Neb ras ka cas es rel ev an t to th e is su es in t h i s c a se whe rei n th e 2

de fen dant' s surnam e is Sm it h. W e wil l di ffer en ti at e th em by in cl ud in g th e de fen da nt 's

fir st na m e in th e ci ta ti on

.

-4

-The di st ric t co ur t h e l d t h at th e in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s fai le d on th e

m eri ts

, be cau se th e N e b r a s ka Su pr em e Co ur t's de te rm in at io n th at co un se l's

pe rfo rm an ce was no t de fic ie nt was no t an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of Stri ck la nd v.

W as hi ng to n, 46 6 U.S

. 6 6 8 ( 19 84 ), no r was it an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of th e

fact s in li gh t of th e ev id en ce ad du ced at tri al

. See 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ). W it h reg ard

to th e du e pr oc es s cl ai m s, th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e cl ai m s were no t fai rly

pr es en te d to th e st at e co ur ts an d were th us pr oc ed ur al ly de fau lt ed

. H o w e v e r , th e

co ur t went on to di sc us s an d reject th e du e pr oc es s clai m s on th e m eri ts

, no ti ng th at

at th e ti m e of Iro m

ua n ya ' s tri al

, m an sl au gh te r on a su dd en qu arre l was no t a le ss er

in cl ud ed of

fen se of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r. The du e pr oc es s cl ai m s were cert ifi ed fo r

ap pe ll at e rev ie w.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Sta nda rd o f Rev ie w

W e rev ie w pe ti ti on s fo r writ of ha be as co rp us un de r th e st an da rd s se t fo rth in

th e Ant it erro ris m an d Effect iv e Deat h Pen al ty Act of 19 96 ("AEDPA" ). If

Iro m ua nya's cl ai m s wer e "a dju di cat ed on th e m eri ts in Sta te co ur t p ro ceed in gs ," 2 8

U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ), he is en ti tl ed to rel ie f on ly by s h o win g th at th e ad jud ic at io n

res ul te d in a d e c i s i o n th at was ei th er "co nt rary to

, or in vo lv ed an un reas on ab le

ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d Fed eral la w, as de te rm in ed by th e Su pr em e Co ur t

of th e Uni te d St at es ," or "b as ed on an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of th e fact s in li gh t

of th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he Sta te co ur t p ro ceed in g."

A st at e pr is on er m

us t pr es en t th e su bs ta nc e of each fed eral co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m

to th e st at e co ur ts be fo re se ek in g fed eral ha be as co rp us rel ie f. Arn ol d v. Dor m ir e , 67 5 F

. 3d 10 82

, 10 86 -8 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Und er th e po st co nv ic ti on pr oc ed ur es

av ai la bl e in Neb ras ka

, t h e p r is on er m us t ha ve pr es en te d each § 22 54 cl ai m to th e

Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t, ei th er on di rect rev ie w or po st co nv ic ti on rev ie w, be fo re

-5

-fed eral ha be as rev ie w is av ai la bl e. Aki ns v. Ken ne y , 41 0 F.3 d 45 1, 45 4- 55 (8 th Ci r.

20 05 ) (co ns tru in g Neb ras ka la w). If th e pr is on er fai ls to do so , th e cl ai m is

pr oc ed ur al ly defau lt ed . Id.

B. Pro cedu ra l Def

au lt

The fir st di s p u t e is whe th er Iro m ua nya ha s fai rly pr es en te d hi s du e pr oc es s

cl ai m s to th e st at e co ur ts

, an d if he di d, whe th er th ey were ad jud ic at ed on th e m eri ts
by th e Neb ras ka co ur ts

. Iro m ua nya arg ue s th e tri al co u r t v i o l a te d hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s by fa il in g to pr op erl y in st ru ct th e ju r y a s pr ev io us ly s ta te d. The go ve rn m en t

arg ue s th at Iro m

ua nya di d no t rai se th es e cl ai m s in br ie fin g to th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e

C o u r t on di rect or po st co nv ic ti on ap pe al

. Our rev ie w o f Iro m ua nya's di rect a p p e a l

an d po st co nv ic ti on ap pe al br ie fs in di cat es th at Iro m ua nya arg ua bl y di d rai se th e du e

pr oc es s i s s u e s , bo th in de pe nd en tl y an d in th e co nt ex t of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l cl ai m s. And whi l e th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t di d no t ex pl ic it ly ad dr es s

al l of th e du e pr oc es s is su es in th e de ni al of rel ie f on di rect ap pe al

, it di d ad dr es s du e 3

pr oc es s in it s po st co nv ic ti on op in io n. Iro m ua nya II, 80 6 N.W .2d at 43 5. The co ur t

st at ed :

W e reject Iro m

ua nya's arg um en t th at th e in st ru ct io ns rel ie ve d th e St at e of it s bu rd en to pr ov e be y on d a r e as on ab le do ub t th at th e at te m pt to

cau se de at h was no t co m m it te d du rin g a su dd en qu arre l pr ov oc at io n.
Due pr oc es s req ui res th e pr os ecu ti on to pr ov e, be y on d a r e a so na bl e do ub t, ev ery f

a c t n e c es sa ry to co ns ti tu te th e cri m e ch arg ed

. Here, th e in st ru ct io n fo r at te m

pt ed se co nd de gr ee m

ur de r of Je nk in s in fo rm ed th e jury th at th e St at e ha d to pr ov e Iro m u a n ya ' s i n t en t to ki ll be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t. The ab se nc e of a pr ov oc at io n is no t an e l e ment of

se co nd de gr ee m

ur de r, an d no el em en t of th e ch arg e is pr es um ed

. If th e

Th e co ur t di d di sc us s th e m an sl au gh te r le ss er in cl ud ed in st ru ct io n whi le 3

di sp os in g of Iro m

ua nya's arg um en ts ab ou t hi s th eo r y-of -d efen se in st ru ct io n.
Iro m ua nya I, 71 9 N.W.2d a t 2 88

.

-6

-ju r o rs ha d be li ev ed th at Iro m ua nya di d no t in te nd to ki ll Je nk in s, th e in st ru ct io ns req ui red t h e m t o fin d hi m no t gu il ty of at te m pt ed se co nd

de gr ee m ur de r.

Id

. (fo ot no te s om it te d)

. We f i n d th at Iro m

ua nya ad eq ua te ly, th ou gh po ss ib ly

in art fu ll y , pr es en te d th e du e pr oc es s cl ai m s to th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t, an d th at

th e co ur t ad

jud ic at ed th em

. Fu rth er, ev en were we to f i nd th e pr oc ed ur al is su e in

do ub t, we m ay , an d in fact wil l, pr oc eed to th e m eri ts of Iro mu a n ya's cl ai m s. See

Barr et t v. Acev ed o, 16 9 F.3 d 11 55

, 11 62 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (h ol di ng th at whi le no rm al ly

pr oc ed ur al is su es sh ou ld be res ol ve d fir st

, jud ic ia l eco no m y so m et im es di ct at es

reac hi ng th e m eri ts if t he m eri ts are m or e eas il y res ol va bl e).

C. Meri ts

Bec au se th e st at e co ur t ad jud ic at ed Ir o mu a n ya ' s du e pr oc es s cl ai m on th e

m eri ts , I ro m

ua nya I I, 80 6 N.W .2d at 43 5, we rev ie w u nd er th e de fe ren ti al st an da rd

of 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 (d ). Alt ho ug h Iro m ua n ya ' s h ab eas co rp us pe ti ti on li st s du e

pr oc es s cl ai m s wit h m

ul ti pl e pa rts

, we fin d th at ba se d up on hi s ap pe ll at e br ie fin g th e

cl ai m s can be di st il le d as fo ll ows : Iro m ua nya's jury sh ou ld ha ve be en ab le to co ns id er

su dd en -q ua rrel pr ov oc at io n to di st in gu is h be twee n se c o nd -d eg ree m ur de r an d

m an sl au gh te r, an d th e st at e ha s th e bu rd en of pr ov in g th e ab se nc e of su dd en -q ua rrel

pr ov oc at io n. Iro m

ua nya ch al le ng es th e fact th a t th e jury was pr ecl ud ed fro m

co ns id eri ng su dd en qu arre l on th e at te m pt ch arg e (in vo lv in g Je nk in s an d ba se d up on

th e tr ia l co ur t's an swe r to th e jury qu es ti on ), an d t he fact th at th e st ep in st ru ct io n i n

th e s e c on d- de gr ee-m

ur de r ch arg e di d no t al lo w t he jury to co ns id er su dd en qu arre l

un le ss an d un ti l it fo un d Iro m ua nya no t gu il ty o f s e c o n d -d eg ree m ur de r. The

Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t fo un d th at th ere was no du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n an d th e st at e

was no t rel ie ve d of it s bu rd en to pr ov e th e el em en ts of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r be cau se

in th e St at e of Neb ras ka in 20 04

, "[t ]he ab se nc e of a pr ov oc at io n [was ] no t an el em en t

of sec on d d eg ree m

ur de r." Iro m

ua nya II, 80 6 N.W.2d a t 4 35

.

-7

-At th is po in t, th e s t a t e of Neb ras ka la w on se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r an d

m an sl au gh te r be twee n 19 9 4 an d 20 11 m eri ts ou r at te nt io n. In St at e v. Ry an , 54 3

N.W .2d 12 8, 1 3 7 ( N e b

. 19 96 ), th e co ur t reaf fir m ed nu m ero us of it s pr io r ho ld in gs

th at m al ic e is

, an d ha s be en fo r a ve ry lo ng ti m e, an el em en t of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r,

de sp it e th e fact th at th e Neb ras ka le gi sl at ur e om i t t e d t he te rm "m al ic e" fro m th e

st at ut or y de fin it io n of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r in th e 19 77 re v i s i on of th e Neb ras ka

co de

. Howev er, m erel y two y ears la te r, in Bu rli so n, 58 3 N.W .2d at 36

, th e co ur t

ov erru le d Ry an an d nu m ero us ot he r cas es , an d he ld th at m al ic e is no t an el em en t of

se co nd -d eg ree m

ur de r ba se d on th e st at ut or y de fin it io n. See Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 28 -3 04

(Rei ss ue 20 16 ) (d efi ni ng se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r si n c e 19 77 as "ca us [in g] th e de at h

of a pe rs on in te nt io na ll y , bu t wi th ou t p rem ed it at io n" ).

Rel a t ed ly, m an sl au gh te r is de fin ed in Neb ras ka as th e ki ll in g of an ot he r,

wit ho ut m al ic e, ei th er up on a su dd en qu arre l or by un in te nt io na ll y cau si ng th e de at h

of an ot h e r w h i l e c o m

m it ti ng an un la wfu l act

. See St at e v. Pet ti t, 44 5 N.W .2d 89 0,

89 6 (Neb

. 1 9 8 9 ) ( ci ti ng Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 28 -3 05 (1 )). The Pet ti t co ur t no te d th at

ba se d up on th e di sju nc ti ve na tu re of th e st at ut e an d ot he r co m m on la w pr in ci p le s,

in te n t i s a n es se nt ia l el em en t of m an sl au gh te r co m m it te d up on a su dd en qu arre l

(v ol un ta ry m an sl au gh te r) an d in te nt is no t an el em en t of m an sl au gh te r whe n a pe rs on

is ki ll ed du rin g th e co m

m is si on of an un la wfu l act (in v o lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r). Id

.

at 90 1. Howev er, in St at e v. Jo ne s, 51 5 N.W .2d 65 4

, 6 5 9 ( Neb

. 19 94 ), th e co ur t

rel ie d up on rece nt pr io r Neb ras ka cas es de fin in g "m al ic e" an d ul ti m at el y eq ua te d th e

co nc ep t of "m al ic e" with in te nt

. Id

. Acco rd in gl y , th e Jo ne s co ur t he ld th at be cau se

m an sl au gh te r is de fin ed to be a ki ll in g co m m it te d wit ho ut m al ic e, m an sl au gh te r is an

un in te nt io na l cri m e. Id

. Jo ne s rem ai ne d th e st at e of th e la w w i t h reg ard to

m an sl au gh te r un ti l 20 11

, whe n th e co ur t ov erru le d Jo ne s a n d he ld th at vo lu nt ary

m an sl au gh te r is an in te nt io na l cr im e. Ro na ld Sm it h

, 80 6 N.W.2d a t 3 93 -9 4.

In Ro na ld Sm it h, th e de fen da nt was co nv ic te d of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r aft er

ki ll in g hi s gi rlf

rie nd

, fo ll owi ng a ni gh t of dr in ki ng an d m et ha m ph et am in e us e, as well

-8

-a s a n o n go in g arg um en t be twee n th e two of th em ov er m on ey

. Ro na ld pu sh ed he r

fro m th e be d and as s he lay m ot io nl es s o n th e flo or , he sm ot he red he r wit h a pi ll ow

fo r on e to two m in ut es

. Befo re he le ft, he co ve red he r wit h a bl an ke t an d ab sc on de d

un ti l he was arre st ed in Ill in oi s. Id

. at 38 7. On di rect ap pe a l

, h e a r g u e d (as

I r o m ua nya no w arg ue s)

, th at th e jury was in co rrec tl y in st ru ct ed be cau se th e s t e p

in st ru ct io n gi ve n di d no t al lo w th e jury to co ns id er whe th er hi s sp eci fic in te nt to ki ll

was th e res ul t of a su dd en qu arre l. Id

. at 39 0. The co ur t ack no wle d g e d t h a t a t th e

ti m e of Ro na ld 's tri al po st -J on es , be cau se m an sl au gh te r was no t an in te nt io na l cri m e,

th e st ep in st ru ct io n was th e co rrec t st at em en t of th e la w at th e ti m e. Id

. Howev er, th e

co ur t d e c i d e d th at Jo ne s was wro ng ly de ci de d (in pa rt be cau se it was ba se d up on

m al ic e cas es th at were su bs eq ue nt ly ov erru le d in Bu rli so n) an d he ld t h a t th e st at e

m us t pr ov e in te nt to ki ll fo r a co nv ic ti on fo r m an sl au gh te r up on a su dd en qu arre l. Id

.

at 39 2- 94

. Thu s, th e co ur t fo un d th e st ep jury in st ru ct io n to be erro ne ou s. Id

. at 39 4.

Howev er, th e co ur t al so an al y zed th e ev id en ce p r e s e n te d at tri al an d fo un d th at th e jury co u l d no t ha ve reas on ab ly co nc lu de d th at Ro na ld co m m it te d su dd en -q ua rrel

m an sl au gh te r, an d th eref

or e th e erro ne ou s jury in st ru ct io n was no t pr ejud ic ia l. Id

. at

39 5. The co ur t ack no wled ge d th at al th ou gh Ro na ld an d hi s gi rlf rie nd were arg ui ng

an d he was an gr y , th ere was no ev id en ce th at th is an ge r wou l d h a v e pr ov ok ed a

reas on ab le pe rs on in Ro na ld 's po si ti on to ob sc ur e an d di st ur b hi s po wer of reas on in g

so as to m ak e hi m sm ot he r he r wit h a pi ll ow fo r two m in ut es aft er he ha d kn oc ke d he r

un co ns ci ou s. Id

.

In Sta te v. W il li am

Sm it h (Wil li am

Sm it h I) , 81 1 N.W.2d 7 20 , 73 3 (Ne b. Ct

. App

. 20 12 ), th e Neb ras ka Co ur t o f App eal s ex pl ai ne d t ha t d ur in g t he ti m e be twee n

Jo ne s an d Ro na ld Sm it h, "t he cri m e of at te m pt ed vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r (ev en up on

a su d d e n qu arre l) [d id ] no t ex is t in Neb ras ka ." Id

. at 73 4. Thi s was so be cau se an

at te mpt cri m e req ui red th e act or to ta ke a su bs ta nt ia l st ep to ward co m m it ti ng th e

cri m e, whi ch was a n i nt en ti on al act . Becau se m an sl au gh te r was le ga ll y co ns id ered

an un in te nt io n a l cri m e fro m 19 94 th ro ug h 20 11

, a pe rs on co ul d no t "p erfo rm th e

sa m e act bo th in te nt io na ll y an d un in te nt io na ll y ." Id

. Ess en ti al ly, on e can co mmit an

-9

-un in te nt io na l c r im e, bu t on e can no t at te mpt an un in te nt io na l cri m e. Fu rth erm or e,

al so du rin g th is ti m e fram e, th e ab se nc e of su dd en -q ua rrel pr ov oc at io n co ul d no t be

co ns id ered an el em en t of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r, ag ai n be cau se of th e un in te nt io na l

na tu re o f man sl au gh te r up on a su dd en qu arre l be twee n th e ti m e of 19 94 an d 20 11

. On fu rth er rev ie w to th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t, th e co ur t ru le d th at th e ch an ge in

la w ann ou nc ed in Ro na ld Sm it h was no t a n ew ru le of c on st it ut io na l l aw an d c ou ld

th eref or e on ly be ap pl ie d to cas es pe nd in g on di rect rev ie w (an d by im pl ic at io n, no t

t o c a s e s on co ll at eral rev ie w). St at e v. W il li am Sm it h (Will ia m Sm it h II), 8 2 2

N.W .2d 40 1, 4 16 (Neb . 20 12 ).

So

, whe n Iro m

ua nya co m

m it te d a n d w as tri ed fo r th is cri m e in 20 04

, m al ic e

was no t an el em en t of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r, an d a co nv ic ti on fo r m an sl au gh te r di d

no t req ui re pr oo f of in te nt

. The effe ct of th e fo reg oi ng was th at th e cri m e of

at te m pt ed su dd en -q ua rrel m an sl au gh te r di d no t ex is t (an d t h e r e f o re co ul d no t be

co ns id er e d b y t h e ju ry as a le ss er in cl ud ed of fen se fo r th e at te m

pt ch arg e), an d th e

ab se nc e of pr ov oc at io n was no t an e l e ment of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r. Giv en al l of

th is

, th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t fo un d th at th ere was no du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n an d

th e st at e was no t rel ie ve d of it s bu rd en to pr ov e th e el em en ts of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r

in 20 04 du rin g Iro m

ua nya's tri al

. Iro m

ua nya II, 80 6 N.W .2d at 43 5. Thi s was no t

co nt rary to, n or an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n o f, Su pr em e Co ur t p rece de nt

.

Howev er, Iro m

ua nya arg ue s th at In re W in sh ip

, 39 7 U.S. 35 8 (1 97 0)

, Mu ll an ey v. W il bu r, 42 1 U.S. 68 4 (1 97 5)

, Pat te rs on v. New Yor k, 43 2 U.S. 19 7
(1 97 7)

, an d di ct a fro m Mar ti n v. Ohi o, 48 0 U.S. 22 8 (1 98 7) co m pe l a co n tra ry

co nc lu si on

. In re W in sh ip se ts fo rth th e ou te r bo un da rie s of ou r in qu iry as it he ld th at

th e Due Pro ces s C la us e "p ro te ct s t he accu se d a ga in st co nv ic ti on ex cep t up on pr oo f

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t of ev ery fact ne ces sa ry to co ns ti tu te th e cri m e wit h whi ch

h e i s ch arg ed ." 39 7 U.S. at 36 4. Fi ve y ears la te r in Mu ll an ey , th e Su pr eme C o u r t

gr an te d ha be as co rp us rel ie f be cau se th e St at e of Mai ne pl aced th e b ur de n o f pr oo f

on th e de fen da nt to pr ov e th at he act ed "i n th e he at of pa ss io n" to av oi d a co nv ic ti on

-1 0-fo r m

ur de r (an d it s res ul ti ng li fe se nt en ce) an d red uc ed th e ho m ic id e ch arg e to

m an sl au gh te r. 42 1 U.S. at 68 6, 70 0- 01

. The St at e of Mai ne at th at ti m e reco gn iz ed

two fo rm s of ho m ic id e– m ur de r an d m an sl au gh te r. Onc e th e st at e ha d pro ve d th at a

ki ll in g was bo th un la wfu l an d in te nt io na l, th e jury wou ld th en co ns id er th e di st in ct io n

be twee n m

ur de r an d m an sl au gh te r. In so do in g, t he jury was in st ru ct ed th at m al ic e

afo ret ho ug ht was im

pl ie d "u nl es s th e de fen da nt pr ov ed by a fai r pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce th at [th e de fen da nt ] act ed in th e he at of pa ss io n on su dd en pr ov oc at io n."

Id

. at 68 6. The Co ur t he ld th at th e m a l i c e pr es um pt io n, th ou gh su bjec t to reb ut ta l,

rel ie ve d th e st at e of it s du e pr oc es s b u rd en to pr ov e ev ery el em en t of th e cri m e

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, as req ui red by In re Wins hi p. Id . at 7 00 -0 1.

A few y ears la te r, ho wev er, in Pat te rs on , th e Co ur t di st in gu is he d Mu ll an ey an d

fo un d no du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n whe re th e accu se d was req ui red to pr ov e se lf de fen se by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce. Id

. at 21 5- 16

. Thi s was be cau se th e New Yor k

m ur de r st at ut e at is su e di d no t ha ve m al ic e as an el em en t (an d di d no t al lo w th e jury

to pr es um e an el em en t

, u n l ik e in Mu ll an ey ), an d th us th e st at e was no t req ui red to

"d is pr ov e be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t ever y fact co ns ti tu ti ng an y an d all affi rm at iv e

de fen se s rel at ed to th e cu lp ab il it y of an accu se d." Id

. at 21 0, 21 6. Te n ye a r s a f t e r

Pat te rs on , in Mar ti n, th e Co ur t he ld th at th e St at e of Ohi o li ke wis e di d no t

un co ns ti tu ti on al ly sh ift th e bu rd en by req ui rin g th e de fen da nt to pr ov e th e el em en ts

of sel f de fen se . Howev er, t he Co ur t wen t o n t o s ta te :

It wou ld be qu it e d i f

f e ren t if th e jury ha d be en in st ru ct ed th at

s e l f-d efen se ev id en ce co ul d no t be co ns id ered in de te rm in in g whe th er th ere was a reas on ab le do ub t ab ou t th e St at e's cas e, i.e., th at se lf- de fen se

ev id en ce m

us t be pu t a s i d e fo r al l pu rp os es un le ss it sa ti sf ie d th e

pr ep on de ran ce st an da rd

. Su ch an in st ru ct io n wou ld rel ie ve th e St at e of

it s b ur de n a nd pl ai nl y

run afo ul of Win sh ip 's m an da te

.

Mar ti n, 4 80 U.S. at 2 33 -3 4.

-1 1-To s um m ari ze ap pl ic ab le Su pr em e Co ur t prec ed en t: du e pr oc es s requ ire s th e

st at e to pr ov e, be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t, ev ery fact ne ces sa ry to co ns ti tu te th e cri m e

wit h whi ch a de fen da nt is ch arg ed

. In re W in sh ip

, 39 7 U.S. at 36 4. Due pr oc es s do es

no t, ho wev er, req ui re th e st at e to di sp ro ve ev ery po ss ib le fact th at wou ld m it ig at e or

ex cu se th e de fen d a n t 's cu lp ab il it y

. Pat te rs on , 43 2 U.S. at 20 7. Nor do es a st at e

le gi sl at ur e vi ol at e a de fen da nt 's du e pr oc es s rig ht s whe n it al lo c a t es th e bu rd en of

pr ov in g an affi rm at iv e de fen se to th e de fen da n t whe n th e de fen se m erel y ex cu se s

co nd uc t t ha t wou ld ot he rwis e be pu ni sh ab le

. Mar ti n, 48 0 U.S. a t 23 7. Bu t whe n a

"d efen se " ne ces sa ril y ne ga te s an el em en t of an of fen se , it is no t a tru e affi rm at iv e

de fen se , an d th e le gi sl at ur e m ay no t al lo cat e to th e de fen da nt th e bu rd en of pr ov in g

th e d efen se . Mul la ne y , 42 1 U.S. at 69 9- 70 1.

Iro m ua nya arg ue s th at hi s " su dd en -q ua rrel pro vo cat io n" de fen se wou ld ha ve

ne ga te d an el em en t of th e of fen se of at te m

pt ed se co nd -d eg ree- m

ur de r in vi ol at io n of

th e Mu ll an ey ru le

, an d th at th e st ep in st ru ct io n, pr ecl ud in g co ns id erat io n of su dd en

qu arre l pr ov oc at io n un ti l an acq ui tt al on se co nd -d eg ree- m ur de r, vi ol at es du e pr oc es s

as ex pl ic at ed by t h e Mar ti n di ct a, qu ot ed ab ov e. Howev er, th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e

Co ur t's de te rm in at io n th at th ere was no du e pr oc es s vi ol at io n in co nn ect io n wit h th e

su dd en -q ua rrel in st ru ct io ns was no t an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of S u p rem e Co ur t

pr eced en t. The st at e was req ui red to pr ov e al l th e el em en ts of se co nd -d eg ree- m ur de r

at th e ti me of Iro m

ua nya's tri al

, in ke ep in g wit h In re W in sh ip

. Su dd en -q ua rrel

pr ov oc at io n di d no t ne ga te an y el em en t of se co nd -d eg ree- m ur de r as co nt em

pl at ed by

Mu ll an ey be cau se it (m an sl au gh te r) was no t co ns id e r e d a n i nt en ti on al cri m e at th e

ti m e of tri al

. The refo re, th e fin d i n g o f a s u d de n qu arre l wou ld no t ne ga te pr oo f of

in te nt

, an el em en t of se c o n d

- d eg ree m ur de r. As th e Ro na ld Sm it h co ur t

ack no wled ge d, th e arg um en t abo ut th e st ep in st ru ct io n was fo recl os ed by Neb ras ka

la w at t he ti m e o f Iro m

ua nya's t ria l. 8 06 N.W .2d at 3 90

.

It is th e st at e's pr ero ga ti ve to de fin e th e el em en ts of it s cri m es

. Bo un ds v. Delo

, 15 1 F.3d 11 16

, 11 18 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) ("Th e el em en ts of st at e la w cri m es are def in ed

-1 2-by st at e la w."); cf. Pat te rs on , 43 2 U.S. at 20 1 ("I t go es wit ho ut sa y in g th at pr ev en ti ng

an d de al in g wit h cri m e is m uc h m or e th e b u s in es s of th e St at es th an it is of th e

Fed eral Gov ern m en t

. . . ." ). Afte r Jo ne s, th ere was no r e q u i r e men t of an in te nt io n

to ki ll in co m

m it ti ng vo lu nt a r y man sl au gh te r an d th us at te m pt ed su dd en -q ua rrel

m an sl au gh te r di d no t ex is t in Neb ras ka

. W il li am Sm it h II, 82 2 N.W .2d at 41 5. And

th e ch arac te riz at io n of su dd en -q ua rrel m an sl au gh te r as an un in te nt io na l cri m e fu rth er

pr ecl ud ed it fro m be in g an el em en t of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r. The Iro m

ua nya II co ur t

reco gn iz ed th e u ni qu e ti m in g a t i ss ue in th is cas e:

So un de r Jo ne s, th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y in st ru ct ed th e juro rs th at th ey

co u l d n o t co ns id er a su dd en qu arre l pr ov oc at io n in de ci di ng whe th er
Iro m ua nya was gu il ty or no t gu il ty of at te m pt ed se co nd de gr ee m

ur de r fo r sh oo ti ng at Je nk in s. It is t r u e th at we ha ve rece nt ly ov erru le d ou r de ci si on in Jo ne s an d he ld th at su dd en qu arre l m an sl au gh t e r is an in te nt io na l ki ll in g. Bu t th is de ci si on was is su ed well aft er Iro m ua nya's

tri al an d d ire ct ap pe al

.

80 6 N.W .2d at 43 5 (fo ot no te s om it te d)

. Had Iro m ua nya's tri al oc cu rred aft er Ro na ld

Sm it h, th e cas e th at ov erru le d Jo ne s, Iro m ua nya's jury li ke ly wou ld h a ve be en

in st ru ct ed di ffer en tl y

. Bu t whi le Ro na ld Sm it h ch an ge d Neb ras ka m an sl au gh te r la w,

it di d so on R o n a l d S mith 's di rect ap pe al

, an d th is ch an ge was no t ret ro act iv el y

ap pl ie d t o o th er ca se s p en di ng on co ll at eral rev ie w. W il li am Sm it h II, 82 2 N.W.2d

at 41 5- 16 (n ot in g th at Ro na ld Sm it h " di d n ot an no un ce a ne w c on st it ut io na l ru le ").

In de ed

, th e ch an ge in la w an no un ced in Ro na ld Sm it h di d no t ev en h e l p Ro na ld

Sm it h, as the co ur t fou nd th at th ere was no ev id en ce of sud de n- qu arre l pro vo cat io n

in tro du ced at tri al

, an d th us he was n ot pre jud ic ed by the ne wly erro ne ou s st ep jury

in st ru ct io n. Ro na ld Sm it h, 8 06 N.W .2d at 3 95

.

To th e ex te nt Ir om

ua ny a im pl ic it ly co m

pl ai ns ab ou t Ro na ld Sm it h no t ap pl y in g

ret ro act iv el y , th is ag ai n is a st at e la w pr ob le m , no t a fed eral du e p r oc es s pr ob le m

. See Est el le v. McGu ire

, 50 2 U.S. 62

, 71 -7 2 (1 99 1)

. A fed eral co ur t m ay gr an t ha be as

-1 3-rel ie f on th e ba si s of a fau lt y s t a t e l aw jury in st ru ct io n on ly if th e erro ne ou s

in st ru ct io n "s o i n f

e c t e d th e en ti re tri al th at th e res ul ti ng co nv ic ti on vi ol at es du e

pr oc es s." Id

. at 72 (q uo ti ng Cu pp v. Nau g h t e n , 4 1 4 U.S. 14 1, 14 7 (1 97 3) ). The

st rin ge nt Est el le st an da rd can no t be m et he re, be cau se si m il ar to Ro na ld Sm it h, th ere

was li ke ly a la ck of ev id en ce fro m whi ch th e jury co ul d ha ve co nc lu de d th at 4

Iro m ua ny a co m m itt ed sudd en -q

ua rr el m an sla

ught er in st ead of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r.

S e e R on al d Sm it h, 80 6 N.W .2d at 39 5. The Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t's fac t u a l

reci ta ti on of Iro m

ua nya's c a s e i n di cat es th at su dd en -q ua rrel pr ov oc at io n was no t

real ly an is su e du rin g Iro m ua nya's tri a l

. Th e jury he ard Iro m ua nya's vi de ot ap ed

st at e men t t h at whi le he was an gr y th at he ha d be en accu se d of st eal in g th e sh ot
gl as se s, he di d no t in te nd to hi t Je nk in s, bu t jus t wan te d to sc are hi m away. Fu rth er,

Iro m ua nya ad m it te d th at whe n he fi r e d t h e sh ot

, he kn ew th at he was no lo ng er

s u s p e c t e d of st eal in g th e sh ot gl as se s. Mo st im po rta nt ly, fiv e m in ut es ha d pa ss ed

be twee n th e in it ia l sh ov in g mat c h b et ween Iro m ua nya an d Je nk in s, an d whe n

Iro m ua nya fir ed th e fat al sh ot

. Iro m ua nya I, 71 9 N.W .2d at 27 5- 77

. The se reci ta ti on s

are pr es um ed to be co rrec t. 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 ( e )

. Th u s , an y po ss ib le erro r di d no t

in fect th e en ti re tri al so as to res ul t in a de ni al of du e pr oc es s, Est el le

, 50 2 U.S. at 72

, be cau se su dd en -q ua rrel pr ov oc at io n was li ke ly no t a via ble theo ry gi ve n th e ev id en ce

pr es en te d a t t ria l. See Ro na ld Sm it h, 8 06 N.W .2d at 3 95

.

Alt ho ug h Iro m

ua nya (u nd ers ta nd ab ly) rel ie s up on th e jury qu es ti on as ki ng if 4

it co ul d co ns id er su dd en -q ua rrel m an sl au gh te r fo r th e at te m pt ch arg e, we real ly ha ve

no way of kn owi ng wha t th e jury was th in ki ng whe n it su bm it te d th at qu es ti on

. It is

qu it e po ss ib le th e jury was co nf us ed by th e co m

pa ris on of th e a t t e mp te d se co nd

de gr ee-c ha rg e's in st ru ct io ns (an d no te d th e la ck of an y m en ti o n of su dd en -q ua rrel

m an sl au gh te r), wit h th e se co nd -d eg ree in st ru ct io ns whi ch in cl ud ed su dd en -q ua rrel

m an sl au gh te r as a le ss er in cl ud ed of fen se of se co nd -d eg ree m ur de r. Hav in g wres tl ed

wit h ap pl ic ab le Neb ras ka la w whi le co ns id eri ng th is cas e, we can eas il y co m pr eh en d

th e jury's po ss ib le co nf

us io n ov er why th e c r i me of at te m pt ed su dd en -q ua rrel

m an sl au gh te r di d n ot ex is t i n 2 00 4.

-1 4-II I. CONCLUSI ON

The Neb ras ka Su pr em e C o ur t de te rm in ed th at du e pr oc es s was no t of fen de d

by ei th er th e la ck of jury in st ru ct io ns , o r t h e s te p jury in st ru ct io n, wit h reg ard to

su dd en -q ua rrel m an sl a u g h t e r. Thi s ad jud ic at io n was no t co nt rary to

, no r di d it

in vo lv e an un reas on ab le ap pl ic at io n of

, cl earl y es ta bl is he d Su pr em e Co ur t pr eced en t.

The ad jud ic at io n al so was no t ba se d on an un reas on ab le de te rm in at io n of th e fact s in

li gh t o f th e ev id en ce p res en te d i n t he st at e co ur t p ro ceed in gs . W e aff irm.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 5-