Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

HEMPHILL v. NEW YORK 

Opinion of the Court 

The Appellate Division affirmed.  In relevant part, it rea-
soned that “[d]uring the trial, defendant created a mislead-
ing impression that Morris possessed a 9 millimeter hand-
gun,  which  was  consistent  with  the  type  used  in  the
murder, and introduction of the plea allocution was reason-
ably necessary to correct that misleading impression.”  173 
App. Div. 3d 471, 477, 103 N. Y. S. 3d 64, 71 (2019).  Justice 
Manzanet-Daniels dissented on other grounds, arguing in 
part  that  the  evidence  was 
insufficient  to  support
Hemphill’s conviction.

Hemphill sought review from the New York Court of Ap-

peals, the State’s highest court.  He contended: 

“The Appellate Division’s analysis equates presenting
a  valid,  evidence-based  third  party  defense  with  mis-
leading the jury, opening the door to testimonial hear-
say. . . . Such an approach is absurd in the context of 
the Confrontation Clause, the purpose of which is to af-
ford the accused the right to meaningfully test the pros-
ecution’s proof.”  App. 388. 

The Court of Appeals affirmed.  35 N. Y. 3d 1035, 1036– 
1037, 150 N. E. 3d 356, 357–358 (2020).  This Court granted 
certiorari.  593 U. S. ___ (2021). 

II 
Before proceeding to the merits, the Court must address
the State’s threshold argument that Hemphill failed to pre-
sent his claim adequately to the state courts.

This  Court  “has  almost  unfailingly  refused  to  consider 
any  federal-law  challenge  to  a  state-court  decision  unless
the federal claim ‘was either addressed by or properly pre-
sented to the state court that rendered the decision we have 
been  asked  to  review.’ ”  Howell  v.  Mississippi,  543  U. S. 
440, 443 (2005) (per curiam) (quoting Adams v. Robertson, 
520 U. S. 83, 86 (1997) (per curiam)).  “ ‘No particular form