Legal Document

74 United States Supreme Court Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 3 103 Reporter 276 459 U.S. 4 Charles E. ANDERSON, Wardenv.Jack HARLESS. Number 81-2066. Nov. 1, 1982. PER CURIAM. 1 Respondent was convicted of two counts first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Michigan Appeals affirmed respondent's conviction, People versus Harless, 78 Mich.App. 745, 261 North Western Reporter, 2nd 41 (1977), the Court, on review record, denied request for relief. Petn Cert 30a. 2 then filed a petition writ habeas corpus, pursuant 28 Code KF62 s 2254, in District Eastern Michigan. He alleged, inter alia, that trial court's instruction "malice"-a crucial element distinguishing between second manslaughter under law-was unconstitutional.1 In particular, respondent focused following language from lengthy charge: "Malice is implied nature act which caused death. Malice can be using weapon another person. You are not obligated reach conclusion, but you must imply malice if find death (sic) by use gun against another." 59a. Relying primarily Sandstrom Montana, 442 510, 99 2450, 61 39 (1979), held this unconstitutionally shifted burden proof inconsistent with presumption innocence. Harless Anderson, 504 F.Supp. 1135 (1981). court also had exhausted available state-court remedies, as required §§ 2254(b) (c), since his conviction been reviewed both Court. ordered application corpus granted unless retried within 90 days. 5 Sixth Circuit affirmed. 664 Federal 610 (1982). claim properly state courts, because presented facts he based federal argued "reversible error." See Mich.App., at 748, N.W.2d, 43. emphasized respondent, brief Appeals, cited Martin, 392 Mich. 553, 221 336 (1974)-a decision predicated solely law no issues were decided, defendant broadly failure instruct jury violates Fourteenth Amendments. view assertion before erroneous, coupled citation supra, provided courts sufficient opportunity consider issue encompassed subsequent petition. 6 We reverse. Picard Connor, 404 270, 92 509, 30 438 (1971), we made clear § 2254 requires petitioner provide "fair opportunity" apply controlling legal principles bearing upon constitutional claim. Id., 276-277, S.Ct., 512-513. It enough all necessary support id., 277, 513, or somewhat similar state-law made. See, e.g., Gayle LeFevre, 613 21 (CA2 1980); Paullet Howard, 634 117, 119-120 (CA3 Wilks Israel, 627 32, 37-38 (CA7), cert. denied, 449 1086, 101 874, 66 811 (1980); Connor Auger, 595 407, 413 (CA8), 444 851, 100 104, 62 67 (1979). addition, have "fairly presented" "substance" Picard, 275, 277-278, 512, 513-514. also, Rose Lundy, —- ——, 102 1198, 1204, 71 379 7 case appeal "erroneous." offered conclusion other than to, three excerpts from, supra-a that, law, should fact used. 47a-49a, 51a-53a.2 Not surprisingly, interpreted being rule analyzed it accordingly. 748-750, 8 concluded "the due process ramifications" argument "were self-evident," "reliance Martin present substance challenge exhaustion purposes." F.2d, 612. disagree. its grant relief doctrine certain sorts "mandatory presumptions" may undermine prosecution's prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt thus deprive criminal process. Sandstrom, supra; re Winship, 397 358, 1068, 25 368 (1970). same rationale. However, plain record never considered by, courts. Nor even advanced Martin-the there asserted broad right instructions "properly explain" Mich., 558, 339, did rely more particular analysis developed cases such supra.3 9 Since appears still free see Berry, 10 469, 474-475, 157 310, 312-313 (1968), conclude has remedies 2254. Accordingly, certiorari motion leave proceed forma pauperis granted, judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. so ordered. 11 Justice STEVENS, whom BRENNAN, MARSHALL join, dissenting. 12 Few consume much scarce time judges question whether prisoner adequately filing corpus. Distressingly, seems oblivious takes action only exacerbate problem. 13 On merits garbled contained mandatory finding merely permissive inference allowed make finding.1 parties seem agree mandatory, set aside well settled Michigan2 courts.3 14 rejected construction therefore conviction. After after new trial, commenced proceeding. 15 carefully difference Appeals' simply untenable. 1135, 1138 remedies. 1139. 16 appeal, affirmed, That warden's contention fairly explaining some detail why necessarily very already resolved "that fair Harless' petition." 611. Thereafter, upheld Court's holding merits. 17 & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions sensible approach followed Appeals.4 believe entirely faithful 438, (not form) courts.5 arguable justification dismissing exhaust possibility might decide differently phrased terms rather Martin. note 4, supra. virtually nonexistent. apparently perceives simple Picard; think explained an expansion Picard. Such accompanied careful provides case, undertaken without full briefing argument. 18 But shared would nevertheless take sole purpose correcting what considers technical, procedural error. appropriate expend resources crafting opinions correct technical errors local importance where correction way promotes development law.6 19 If appraisal merits, given prompt retrial. incorrect nothing will gained requiring sets decides substantive error our review. Cf. 1217, (1982) (STEVENS, J., dissenting). 20 respectfully dissent. murder, "malice" premeditation. For reason, argues any definition harmless. light disposition, do issue. represented counsel appeal. defendant's ordinarily apprise reviewing potential insufficient when, here, sought. 276, 512. stated: "Members jury, term doing cruel human excuse justification. Pet. Cert., (1974). Compare Ulster County Allen, 140, 2213, 60 777 39. Because description treatment abbreviated quote relevant portion opinion: "In view, purposes (c). concedes appellate contends, however, error, explicitly complain him "Although us papers, learn opinion court: 'The committed reversible instructing incorrectly implication drawn deadly weapon, effect remove possible manslaughter." 41, 43 (1977) (emphasis added). At gave jury: another. "Harless claimed (1974), does weapon. appellant challenged numerous grounds. gist Martin's failed understanding elements crimes charged, enable them perceive distinctions manslaughter. informed implies ultimately decided matter 'erroneously categorized (the malice) permissible inference.' 341. phrased: explain through adequate abridges trial. neither nor refined Rather, accepted tacitly, response Amendment rights abridged inadequate instruction, stated 'an erroneous misleading charge denies instructed pass evidence.' Although specifically label right, clearly felt prerequisite reliance purposes. although unartfully phrased, sufficiently asked effectively eliminating verdict jury's consideration. ramifications self-evident. Under need constitutional. Given elasticity concept, convinced 611-612. Massachusetts indictment contrary procedures used accord those could approved reference Fifth Amendment's requirement grand applied incorporation Amendment. U.S., 513. This give proposition equal protection, Commonwealth's otherwise universal commitment indictments felony cases. theory "operative effect" quoted above cause unconstitutional malice. Accord, majority opinion, 3. court, struck down 749, (1977). argument-that deprived consideration created malice-is same. many respects sequel Board Education Rogers, Arkansas McCluskey, 3469, 73 1273 my dissent observed: "As REHNQUIST reminded us, 'our zeal "equal justice law," forget forum errors.' Boag MacDougall, 700, 702, 70 551 (dissenting opinion). 'To remain effective, continue questions whose resolution immediate far involved.' illustrates how ineffectively supervising discretionary docket." 3472 dissenting) (footnote omitted).

Classification Label: 0