Opinion ID: 2808502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proof of Harriet's Age

Text: Logan argues that the Commonwealth improperly proved a key element of the charged offense -- Harriet's minority -- solely through the use of hearsay. In this respect, we understand Logan to make two arguments, neither of which is meritorious. Logan first contends that this reliance on hearsay somehow violated Due Process.3 Logan never made a due process argument in any of his state court proceedings; it is thus not properly exhausted under AEDPA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). Logan also failed to include this argument in his habeas petition; it is thus waived as well. See Companonio v. O'Brien, 672 F.3d 101, 112 n.10 (1st Cir. 2012). Logan's argument that he received 3 To the extent that Logan has merely dressed his sufficiency argument in due process garb, we remain unpersuaded. The Appeals Court's decision on the sufficiency of the evidence of Harriet's age was neither contrary to clearly established Supreme Court case law nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). - 8 - ineffective assistance of counsel does not save his waived and unexhausted due process claim in this case. Instead, we understand Logan to be raising an independent claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Andrade's testimony regarding Harriet's date of birth on hearsay grounds. Logan did not make this argument explicitly on direct appeal, but did in his later motion for a new trial. On appeal from the denial of his motion for a new trial, the Massachusetts Appeals Court concluded that it had implicitly considered and rejected this argument in his direct appeal. Barbosa II, 2013 WL 1103912, at . Whether or not the state courts actually dealt with the claim and so are entitled to deference, this claim fails even on de novo review. See Fortini v. Murphy, 257 F.3d 39, 47 (1st Cir. 2001) (applying de novo review to a federal claim that was never addressed by the state courts).4 4 This form of de novo review is not wholly equivalent to the de novo standard that obtains on direct appeal because the claims of habeas petitioners, even on de novo review under Fortini, continue to be limited by the principles laid out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), and its progeny, which generally bar claims that require the application or announcement of 'new rules' of law. Kater v. Maloney, 459 F.3d 56, 58-59 (1st Cir. 2006). But that distinction is immaterial for present purposes. - 9 - Ineffective-assistance claims are governed by the Supreme Court's decision in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), under which the defendant must prove two elements. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, which requires showing that counsel's performance was not only substandard, but also deficient in some way sufficiently substantial to deny him effective representation, Epsom v. Hall, 330 F.3d 49, 53 (1st Cir. 2003). Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, which requires proof that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different, id. at 694. Logan's ineffective-assistance claim most clearly fails on the prejudice prong. Regarding Harriet's minority, Andrade's testimony was not limited to Harriet's date of birth and, therefore, her age on the date of the incidents in question. Andrade testified that she was an adolescent social worker and that Harriet was an adolescent assigned to [her] caseload. Andrade further testified that she had helped Harriet with school as part of her role as an adolescent social worker. And, in addition, the Commonwealth showed the jury a photograph of Harriet - 10 - that was taken roughly one year before Logan's arrest, which Logan does not argue depicted a girl other than a minor-aged one. Even if Andrade's testimony regarding Harriet's date of birth had been excluded as a result of a successful objection by defense counsel -- an issue we need not resolve here -- Logan cannot show a reasonable probability that a hearsay objection to Andrade's testimony about Harriet's date of birth would have changed the outcome of the trial.