Opinion ID: 521096
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 10 Chambers also contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of rape because penetration, a required element of the crime of rape, was not proven at trial. Before we can consider this claim, we must first address the government's assertion that Chambers cannot raise this claim because he did not present this issue to the state court. A habeas petitioner may not raise a constitutional claim in the federal court that he has not raised in state court proceedings unless he can demonstrate adequate cause as to why he failed to raise the claim in the state court and show that actual prejudice resulted from the error of which he complains. Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2506, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). 11 In response, Chambers asserts that because there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction and he is innocent of the charges, he is not required to allege and establish cause and prejudice. [W]here a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent, a federal habeas court may grant the writ even in the absence of a showing of cause and prejudice. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 496, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2650, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). 12 Chambers argues that the victim's testimony was not sufficient to prove that he committed the crime of rape. Ark.Stat.Ann. Sec. 41-1803 (1981) provides that [a] person commits rape if he engages in    deviate sexual activity with another person    who is less than eleven (11) years old. Deviate sexual activity is defined as any act of sexual gratification involving    the penetration, however slight, of the    mouth of one person by the penis of another person. Ark.Stat.Ann. Sec. 41-1801 (1976). The victim testified at trial that Chambers made her put her mouth on his penis and made her lick his penis. Chambers asserts that this testimony was not sufficient to prove penetration and, therefore, he should not have been convicted of rape. 13 We agree with the district court that a rational juror could reasonably have concluded that putting the mouth on the penis constitutes penetration. Consequently, we find that Chambers' trial did not result in the conviction of one who is actually innocent. Murray, 477 U.S. at 496, 106 S.Ct. at 2650. And, Chambers has not shown cause and prejudice as required. Therefore, we cannot further consider this claim because of the procedural bar.