Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-637_10n2.pdf
Page Number: 32

10 

HEMPHILL v. NEW YORK 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

relevant by the opposing party’s strategy.”  Ibid. (internal
quotation  marks  omitted).    But  here,  the  Court  describes 
Reid as permitting the prosecution to introduce all evidence
that is “arguably relevant” to rebut the defendant’s “theory 
of defense.”  Ante, at 2.  The Court thus redefines Reid to be 
what Hemphill said it was not, and then holds that carica-
ture  of  Reid  unconstitutional  without  giving  the  Court  of 
Appeals  an  opportunity  to  clarify  its  evidentiary  rule  in
light of a concrete constitutional challenge.  Even if Massie, 
Reid, and their progeny do not clearly define what it means 
to “mislead” a jury, any uncertainty is all the more reason
for  this  Court  to  refrain  from  deciding  this  case  prema-
turely.  That the New York courts may clarify their doctrine 
in a later case does not forgive the Court’s impetuosity here. 
The Court’s neglect of our settled jurisdictional principles
is particularly unfortunate in this case.  As Hemphill con-
cedes, New York’s Appellate Division does not appear to ap-
ply the door-opening doctrine consistently.  See Reply Brief
10, n. 4.  Some cases hold that Massie and Reid do not per-
mit  the  prosecution  to  introduce  evidence  merely  to
“counte[r]  the  defendant’s  theory  of  the  case.”    People  v. 
Richardson,  95  App. Div. 3d  1039,  1040,  943  N. Y. S. 2d 
599,  600  (2012).  Others  seem  to  apply  the  rule  more  ag-
gressively.  See  People  v.  Cole,  59  App. Div. 3d  302,  302–
303, 873 N. Y. S. 2d 603, 604 (2009).  Either way, the Court 
today purports to resolve what is effectively an intramural 
disagreement  within  the  New  York  judiciary  in  order  to 
reach a novel constitutional claim.  That task should—and 
under §1257’s jurisdictional bar, must—be left to the New 
York Court of Appeals in the first instance. 

* 

* 
I would dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction under 28
U. S. C.  §1257  because  Hemphill  did  not  raise  his  federal
claim to the New York Court of Appeals.  I respectfully dis-
sent. 

*