Document: Cite as: 569 U. S. ____ (2013) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NEVADA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CALVIN O’NEIL JACKSON ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT No. 12–694. Decided June 3, 2013 PER CURIAM. In this case, the Court of Appeals held that respondent, who was convicted rape and other serious crimes, is en- titled to relief under federal habeas statute because Supreme Nevada unreasonably applied clearly established precedent regarding a crim- inal defendant’s constitutional right present defense. At his trial, respondent unsuccessfully sought introduce evidence for purpose showing victim previously reported he had assaulted her but police been unable substantiate those allega- tions. The state supreme court properly excluded, no prior decision establishes exclusion violated respondent’s rights. therefore reversed. I Respondent Calvin Jackson tumultuous decade- long romantic relationship with Annette Heathmon. 1998, after several previous attempts end relation- ship, Heathmon relocated new apartment in North Las Vegas without telling where she mov- ing. learned Heathmon’s whereabouts, on night October 21, visited apartment. What happened next focus re- spondent’s trial. told later testified 2 NEVADA forced way into threatened kill screwdriver if did not have sex him. After raping Heathmon, hit her, stole ring from bedroom, dragged out toward car by neck hair. A witness con- fronted couple, fled. Police observed injuries scalp were consis- tent account events, even- tually arrested. Although testify at dis- cussed allegations shortly arrest, statements admitted acknowledged might agreed two alone “she scared [he] do something,” Tr. 305, claimed consensual. also striking inside denied pulling outside Shortly before sent judge letter recanting accusations stating would testify. She went hiding, eventually found took custody as material wit- ness. Once custody, disavowed When asked about stated three associates write it hurt appeared court. theory defense fabricated sexual assault an effort control respondent. To support theory, testimony reports called occasions claiming raped or otherwise her. corroborate many these allegations, cases they skeptical claims. 3 trial gave wide latitude cross- examine incidents, refused admit allow call witnesses officers involved. jury guilty, sentenced life imprisonment. appealed conviction Su- preme Court, arguing, among things, court’s refusal extrinsic relating incidents complete defense, rejected argument. exhausting remedies court, filed petition, again arguing ruling Applying AEDPA’s deferential standard review, District relief, divided panel Ninth Circuit 688 F.3d 1091 (2012). major- ity alle- gations critical constitu- tional Court’s contrary unrea- sonable application precedents. Id., 1097–1101. ruled inadmissible matter law, concluded impact State’s rules “was dispro- portionate state’s interest . exclusion.” 1101–1104. Finding erroneous evi- dentiary harmless, id., 1104–1106, ordered State either retry lease II Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act 1996 (AEDPA) authorizes grant 4 prisoner whose “involved unreasonable Federal determined United States.” 28 U.S. C. §2254(d)(1). It settled may overturn appli- cation law only so “there possibility fairminded jurists could disagree conflicts prece- dents.” Harrington Richter, 562 ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., 13). standard, we conclude reasonable. “[T]he Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity defense,’ ” Crane Kentucky, 476 683, 690 (1986) (quoting California Trombetta, 467 479, 485 (1984)), recognized “ ‘state rulemak- ers broad establish excluding trials,’ Holmes South Carolina, 547 319, 324 (2006) States Scheffer, 523 303, 308 (1998)). Only rarely rule evidence. See S., 331 (rule rationally serve any discernible purpose); Rock Arkan- sas, 483 44, 61 (1987) arbitrary); Chambers Mississippi, 410 284, 302–303 (1973) (State even attempt explain reason its rule); Washing- ton Texas, 388 14, 22 (1967) be defended). As conceded, “[t]he correct legal principle.” F. 3d, 1097. But Circuit’s conclusion, our precedents start- ing point analysis 5 generally precludes admission dence “[s]pecific instances conduct witness, attacking supporting witness’ credibility, than crime.” App. Pet. Cert. 66; see Nev. Rev. Stat. §50.085(3) (2011). rule, has explained, “is fact-finder most impor- tant facts conserve ‘judicial resources avoiding mini- trials collateral issues.’ Abbott State, 122 715, 736, 138 P.3d 462, Long, 140 S.W.3d 27, 30 (Mo. 2004)). These are “good rea- son[s]” limiting use evidence, Clark Arizona, 548 735, 770 (2006), akin widely accepted specific prove char- acter untruthfulness. Fed. Rule Evid. 608(b); Mueller & L. Kirkpatrick, Evidence §6.27, pp. 497–499 (4th ed. 2009). propriety cannot seriously disputed. exception prohibition contained §50.085(3), Miller 105 497, 499–500, 779 P.2d 87, 88–89 (1989), “in case counsel cross-examine complaining fab- ricated and, denies making charges made past.” 66. order false defendant must file written notice, hold hearing. Miller, supra, 501, P. 2d, 90. requisite upheld complaints basis. 6 No notice requirement unconstitutional. Nor, reasoning majority, 1103–1104, requires case-by-case balancing interests such can enforced. which relied, Michigan Lucas, 500 145 (1991), very far afield. reversed holding Sixth Amendment categorically prohibits enforcement required provide pretrial wished intro- duce witness. suggest, much less hold, unconstitutional enforce unless weighs favor enforcement. Instead, “express[ed] opinion whether preclusion justified th[at] case” left courts address question first instance. 153. fair-minded jurist think Lucas inconsistent Constitution. Some in- troduce concerned ported beat up sexually view applying circumstances. simply invoke set §50.085(3). Rather, reasoned proffered little impeachment value showed victim’s corroborated. impeach credibility confuse jury, unfairly embar- rass victim, surprise prosecution, unduly prolong estab- 7 lishes reasons particular violates entitled pointed own AEDPA deci- sions granted prisoners allowed full cross-examination against them. 1098–1101 (discussing Fowler Sacramento Cty. Sheriff ’s Dept., 421 1027, 1035–1038 (CA9 2005) Holley Yar- borough, 568 1091, 2009)). Those turn relied decisions various restrictions ability violate Confrontation Clause Amendment. See, e.g., Olden 488 227, 231 (1988) (per curiam); Delaware Van Arsdall, 475 673, 678–679 (1986); Davis Alaska, 415 308, 315–316 (1974). never entitles purposes. Fensterer, 474 15, (1985) curiam) (observing “the satisfied when given fair expose [testimonial] infirmities through cross-examination”). Jordan Warden, 675 586, 596 (CA6 2012); Brown Ruane, 630 62, 70 (CA1 2011). elided distinction between examination characterizing recognizing “evidence bearing [a witness’] credibility.” 1099. By framing high level generality, lower transform imag- inative extension existing “clearly lished Court.” thus collapsing “an law” 8 what believes incorrect law,” Williams Taylor, 529 362, 412 (2000), approach defeat substantial deference requires. petition writ certiorari motion proceed forma pauperis granted. judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. ordered.

Category: 8