Opinion ID: 716155
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Consideration of Helton's Criminal History

Text: 10 We now turn to Helton's argument that the jury's consideration of the contents of a box found in the automobile violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, to due process and to a fair trial. The box contained various personal items belonging to Helton, including clothes, letters, a federal presentence investigation report, records of Helton's two previous state-court convictions, and other documentation of Helton's criminal history. Although Helton asked the trial judge to remove the documents relating to his criminal history, the trial court allowed the jury to consider the entire contents of the box, ruling that the records were admissible under Ohio law to prove the theft specifications in the indictment and that the other papers referencing Helton's criminal record were relevant evidence tying Helton to the stolen items in the car. We inquire, pursuant to Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991), whether the state evidentiary ruling violated Helton's constitutional rights by denying him a fundamentally fair trial. See also Woodruff v. Lane, 818 F.2d 1369, 1373 (7th Cir.1987). 11 An examination of the trial as a whole, not just Helton's assignments of procedural error, reveals no violation of fundamental principles of a fair criminal process so egregious as to have nullified the legitimacy of the properly admitted substantive evidence of Helton's guilt. Lundy v. Campbell, 888 F.2d 467, 473 (6th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 950 (1990). The properly admitted substantive evidence provided a wealth of evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction of receipt of stolen property which was not nullified by the admission of the contents of the box. Additionally, in order to prove the prior theft specifications, evidence of Helton's prior convictions would have been admitted nonetheless, thus minimalizing any additional prejudice caused by the contents of the box. There was no denial of a fundamentally fair trial.