Opinion ID: 2975834
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Issue Presented on Appeal

Text: The state first argues that the issue presented by Hargrave is not properly before us on appeal, at least not in full. The state characterizes the issue presented by Hargrave to the Michigan state courts and to the federal district court as “his claim that he should have been allowed to question the victim regarding the [August 1999] probate petition.” Appellee’s Br. at 12. The state argues that Hargrave is “attempt[ing] to expand the claim to contend that the trial court disallowed any cross-examination regarding Ms. Warner’s psychiatric condition.” Id. According to the state, the confrontation issue was exhausted in the state courts only with respect to questioning related to the August 1999 petition, not Warner’s psychiatric condition in general, and only this narrow issue is properly before us via the district court’s certificate of appealability. We reject the state’s narrow, cramped characterization of the issues raised by Hargrave. We have stated: When a habeas petitioner fails to obtain consideration of a claim by a state court, either due to the petitioner’s failure to raise that claim before the state courts while state-court remedies are still available or due to a state procedural rule that prevents the state courts from reaching the merits of the petitioner’s claim, that claim is procedurally defaulted and may not be considered by the federal court on habeas review. 1 Hargrave also argues that the state trial court violated Hargrave’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights by barring Hargrave from asking Warner whether she was using any medication when she testified. The state argues that Hargrave has not been issued a certificate of appealability on this issue. Because we grant Hargrave habeas relief on other grounds, we decline to address this issue. 7 Seymour v. Walker, 224 F.3d 542, 549-50 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 989 (2001). However, in his brief filed in the Michigan Court of Appeals, Hargrave raised a broader claim than that recognized by the state. Hargrave first summarized the state trial court’s rulings, noting the presentation of not only the August 1999 petition, but also the 1997 petitions, the delusions described in Warner’s journal, and defense counsel’s argument “that she should be able to inquire into Ms. Warner’s psychiatric condition in order to establish whether she was operating under delusions when she alleged that she had been raped.” J.A. at 101-02 (Hargrave Mich. Ct. App. Br. at 22-23). Hargrave asserted that the state trial court’s ultimate ruling “denied [Hargrave] the opportunity to present to the jury evidence through cross-examination that would show that Ms. Warner suffered from a mental illness such that her recollection of some of the events which occurred during the offense may be the result of psychiatric delusions.” J.A. at 102 (Hargrave Mich. Ct. App. Br. at 23). Following his analysis of relevant caselaw in support of his argument, Hargrave requested “a new trial in which he is allowed to cross-examine Ms. Warner on her psychiatric condition.” J.A. at 104 (Hargrave Mich. Ct. App. Br. at 25). Although Hargrave’s argument focused on the state trial court’s refusal to allow any questioning specifically related to the August 1999 petition, even the petition itself discusses Warner’s ongoing psychiatric condition in general. Accordingly, we conclude that Hargrave fairly presented to the Michigan state courts the general issue of cross-examination of Warner regarding her psychiatric condition. Likewise, we conclude that the district court granted Hargrave a certificate of appealability for this more general claim. The state is correct that we may review only issues for which a certificate of appealability has been granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). In this case, the district court certified for appeal the following issue: 8 Whether Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief because he was denied a fair trial by the trial court’s ruling on the exclusion of the August 1999 probate petition filed by the victim’s father, which precluded Petitioner’s trial counsel from cross examining the victim concerning the probate petition and her psychiatric condition? J.A. at 285 (Dist. Ct. COA at 2). Like Hargrave’s brief to the Michigan Court of Appeals, the district court’s certificate of appealability decision raised the August 1999 petition specifically and Warner’s psychiatric condition generally. Accordingly, we conclude that Hargrave’s general argument that the state trial court unconstitutionally limited cross-examination of Warner regarding her ongoing psychiatric condition, presented via the specific psychiatric information contained in the August 1999 petition, is properly before us on appeal.