Court Opinion

ID: 9470879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:18:50.604558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:09.270182
License: Public Domain

VAN PELT,
Senior District Judge.
This case comes to us on appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,1 which denied Appellant Edward Payne’s petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Appellant, a major in the Cuyahoga County Sheriff’s Department, was indicted by the Grand Jury of Cuyahoga County on two counts of theft in office in violation of *1308Ohio Rev.Code § 2921.41 and two counts of intimidation in violation of Ohio Rev.Code § 2921.03 for acts which took place in 1975. In 1976, an Ohio state court jury found Appellant guilty of one count of theft in office and one count of intimidation. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 2-10 years and 3-10 years. Appellant is currently on probation as part of his sentence for these convictions.
Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga County which, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the convictions. State v. Payne, 7 Ohio Ops.3d 432 (1978). Appellant then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court which dismissed the appeal. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on the case.
After seeking habeas relief in the district court, Appellant appeals to this court and presents the following issues for review. As stated by Appellant, these issues are:
1. Whether the State’s failure to prove a lawful seizure and possession as charged in the indictment resulted in a denial of Appellant’s right to be convicted only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of the offense charged, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
2. Whether the State’s inclusion of the extra element of “lawful seizure” relating to Appellant’s theft-in-office conviction violates Appellant’s right to fair notice of the charges against him, as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
3. Whether the practice of the Ohio State Appellate Courts of allowing the State to disregard the restrictions of Ohio Criminal Rule 30 to the detriment of the Appellant, while requiring the accused to abide by it, violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. Whether allowing the introduction in Appellant’s State trial of an out-of-court hearsay statement which was crucial to the prosecution and devastating to the defense resulted in a violation of Appellant’s right of confrontation and cross-examination as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
5. Whether allowing the State to convict Appellant of the crime of intimidation when the State failed to prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt resulted in a denial of due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
6. Whether, upon the particular facts of the case, due process required the District Court to go beyond the Jackson v. Virginia standard of sufficiency and independently weigh the evidence.
7. .Whether when it appears that substantial constitutional infirmities are present concerning Appellant’s theft-in-office charge, due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment requires the reversal of an intertwined intimidation charge.
After careful consideration, we affirm the decision of the district court.
I.
Because this case has caused a good deal of consternation in its movement through the judicial process, see State v. Payne, supra at 441 (Jackson, J., dissenting), a careful review of the facts is in order. In doing so, we are mindful that our review is limited. The following facts are of particular significance to the theft in office conviction.
At the time of the incidents in question, Appellant was the warden of the Cuyahoga County Jail and the officer in charge of Division 4. Division 4 was a special undercover force within the Sheriff’s Department intended to conduct selective raids on various after hours establishments and to serve outstanding county warrants. The relevant facts of this case focus on the activities of the Appellant and Division 4 during the spring and summer of 1975.
*1309Deputy Donald W. Campbell, a member of Division 4, was the State’s chief witness and provided most of the evidence against Appellant. He testified as follows: Early on the morning of April 20, 1975, Campbell stayed at Division 4 headquarters while Appellant and other members of the Division conducted a raid2 at a “cheat spot” at 10001 Cedar Avenue. Campbell was still in the office when the Division 4 members returned at approximately 6:00-6:15 a.m. He had an opportunity to observe the items seized which included liquor, gambling equipment, six handguns, and one shotgun. Of particular importance to this case, Campbell testified that included among the handguns were two pearl-handled 9mm automatics. These guns, he testified over objection, were in a plastic evidence bag which was marked with an evidence tag bearing the inscription “10001 Cedar Avenue.” Continuing, Campbell stated that Deputy Sheriff Hosea Garner removed the two handguns from the evidence bag, placed them in a brown paper bag and gave them to the Appellant who, at around 7:30 a.m., then left the office with this package. Neither the guns nor the evidence tag were produced at trial. Campbell further testified that the remaining evidence was entered into the police inventory books. The books contained no reference to the two guns.
The State’s next witness was Sims Goodman, an admitted pimp, who, at the time of trial, was incarcerated pursuant to convictions for receiving stolen property and possession of a concealed weapon. Goodman testified that on the morning of the raid he was nearby and observed Lee Jordan and Ivan Lapsley walking away from the area of 10001 Cedar Avenue. Prior to that date, Goodman had been working as a “door shaker” at Goldie’s Lounge and had, at separate times, checked Jordan’s and Lapsley’s guns which Goodman described as 9mm automatics with snow-white grips. Subsequent to the raid, and on separate occasions, Goodman again checked the guns of these two men. Neither of the men carried the type of pistol he had seen prior to the raid. In reference to the absence of his pistol with snow-white grips, Jordan stated to Goodman, “That nigger Payne got my gun.” In like circumstances, Lapsley told Goodman, “Some bright nigger got it.” On cross-examination, Appellant introduced a prior statement of Goodman’s in which he claimed to have been threatened by the Cleveland Police Department with further prosecution if he didn’t provide information which could be used to “get” Appellant.
The final witness for the State pertaining to the theft in office charge was James Marino, a reporter for the Cleveland Press, who testified that after the raid Appellant had told him that a total of six handguns had been seized.
The Appellant’s case was made up of a number of witnesses whose testimony tended to contradict that of the prosecution’s witnesses. Chief among these was Deputy Garner who testified that he did not even see Campbell and the Appellant at Division 4 headquarters after the raid, let alone see or give to the Appellant the pearl-handled pistols. In addition, the other four deputies who testified also denied seeing either the pistols or the Appellant. Finally, both Jordan and Lapsley denied owning such handguns, denied seeing each other the night and morning of the raid, and denied being at 10001 Cedar Avenue that morning.
The intimidation charge is based on the following evidence: Following the April 19 raid, Deputy Campbell continued to work for the Sheriff’s Department until June, 1975, when he was badly beaten while on duty. As a result of his injuries, Campbell was put on disability leave until November, 1975. He testified that during the summer of his convalescence, he was visited by several members of the Sheriff’s Department. These visitors wanted the file Campbell was known to have kept concerning “irregularities” he had observed in the department. Campbell refused their requests. Campbell was subsequently fired in December of 1975.
Campbell testified that on August 1 of that summer he received a call from the Appellant requesting that Campbell, his *1310wife Judith, and his partner Deputy Phillip Vari, meet the Appellant for an evening at the bar at the Eastown Motel. This meeting took place on the evening of August 2, 1975. Campbell stated that the conversation with the Appellant began in a friendly manner but soon turned to the subject of Campbell’s file. Apparently Appellant wanted the file and wanted to know if it contained information which might help Appellant in defeating the Sheriff in a future election. In addition, Appellant asked Campbell if the file contained information pertaining to the Appellant. Campbell refused to either turn over the file or give Appellant any information as to its contents. Campbell then testified that Appellant stated to him, “If you don’t cooperate with me, I’ll make sure you never get to court.” In response to Campbell’s question as to what he meant by this statement, Appellant replied, “Don’t cooperate with me and you’ll find out.” Campbell’s testimony concerning his conversation with Appellant was substantiated by the testimony of his wife and of Vari. Campbell’s file was never introduced at trial. He claimed that it was stolen in the fall of 1975.
The defense presented two witnesses to counter the State’s evidence. The first, Keldon Casey, stated that he was at the Eastown bar on the night in question and sat with Campbell and his group throughout the evening. He stated that Appellant spent very little time talking to the group and did not make the threats testified to by Campbell. Casey identified Campbell and Vari. However, he stated that the woman seated with the deputies was a blonde woman who he did not know. On rebuttal, the State introduced a picture of Judith Campbell at the bar on the night in question. In that picture she was a brunette.
The other defense witness was Marion Koszewski, an employee of the Sheriff’s Department, who testified that he and his family walked into the bar as Campbell and his party were leaving. He did not talk to Campbell or the Appellant, but observed what he perceived to be a friendly goodbye between the two men. More specifically, he observed Campbell and the Appellant shake hands or hug one another. He was not sure as to which.
II.
At the outset we note that this case presents some very close questions. Our analysis is made all the more difficult by the fact that the case comes to us under habeas corpus jurisdiction, which significantly narrows our scope of review. Therefore, we are required to insert into our judicial equation those principles which govern habeas corpus review.
We recognize that in reviewing a state court judgment we are not acting as a “super state supreme court.” Martin v. Wainwright, 428 F.2d 356, 357 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 918, 91 S.Ct. 179, 27 L.Ed.2d 157 (1970). In addition, the degree of error required to justify reversal in a habeas corpus action is greater than that required on direct appeal. Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 97 S.Ct. 1730, 52 L.Ed.2d 203 (1977); Hicks v. Scurr, 671 F.2d 255 (8th Cir.1982). Such errors must be of constitutional proportion, Dupuie v. Egeler, 552 F.2d 704 (6th Cir.1977), and, taken as a whole and within the context of the entire record, have caused the substantial rights of the petitioner as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to have been infringed. Jenkins v. Bordenkircher, 611 F.2d 162 (6th Cir.1979); Washington v. Watkins, 655 F.2d 1346 (5th Cir.), rehearing denied, 622 F.2d 1116 (1981). With these principles in mind, we will now examine Appellant’s assignments of error.
III.
Appellant’s first and second assignments of error raise questions concerning the language of the indictment in relation to the theft in office charge and conviction. These questions will be discussed together.
The theft in office statute, Ohio Rev.Code § 2921.41, provides in part:
(A) No public official or party official shall commit any theft offense, when either of the following applies:
*1311(1) The offender uses his office, or permits, or assents to its use, in aid of committing the offense; ...
(2) The property or service involved is owned by this or any other state or the United States, a municipality, or any political subdivision, department, or agency of any of them, or by a political party, or is part of a political campaign fund.
The crime of theft in office incorporates Ohio Rev.Code § 2913.02, which defines theft, and requires proof of the following elements.
1) That the defendant as a public official, A) Used his office to commit the offense, or B) Took property owned by the state of a political subdivision therein;
3) Knowingly obtained or exerted control over the property;
2) With the purpose to deprive the owner of the property;
4) Without the consent of the owner.
State v. Payne, supra, 7 0.0.3d at 440 (Corrigan, P.J., concurring).
In addition to the elements outlined above, the indictment which charged Appellant with theft in office included the additional allegation that the two pearl-handled pistols were “property lawfully seized by and in the possession of the Cuyahoga County Sheriffs Department.... ”
Appellant contends that by including this lawful seizure and possession language, the State took it upon itself to add an additional element to the crime which, by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, it was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In addition, Appellant argues that the inclusion of this element violated his right to fair notice of the charges against him as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The district court, which adopted the recommended findings and conclusions of the magistrate, rejected both of these arguments. More specifically, the court held that the indictment alleged all of the essential legal elements of the crime of theft in office and that the inclusion of the “surplus words ... did not change the nature of the offense charged” or raise a question as to fair notice. Finally, the court implied that the evidence presented to prove the crime was sufficient to negate the argument that the inclusion of the false issue constituted fundamental unfairness. We agree.
At the outset, we note that it is apparent that, under the statute in question, lawful seizure is not an element of the crime of theft in office. Under Ohio law, the crime of theft in office is a crime against actual possession and not against ownership or lawful possession. State v. Payne, supra 7 0.0.3d at 436, 443-44. Therefore “the State of Ohio could have prosecuted the Appellant for a crime against ‘mere possession’.” Id. at 444 (Jackson, J., dissenting) (emphasis in original). In addition, there is little dispute that the proof of this additional element did not meet the requisite standard of proof.3 Therefore, the issue presented for our consideration is whether the inclusion of this false issue of lawful seizure interjected an element of fundamental unfairness into the trial.
In Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) the Court stated:
It is axiomatic that a conviction upon a charge not made or upon a charge not tried constitutes a denial of due process. These standards no more than reflect a broader premise that has never been doubted in our constitutional system: that a person cannot incur the loss of *1312liberty for an offense without notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend.
Id. at 314, 99 S.Ct. at 2786 (citation omitted). See Scott v. Perini, 662 F.2d 428 (6th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 909, 102 S.Ct. 1758, 72 L.Ed.2d 167 (1982). In addition, as the court explained in In re Win-ship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that a criminal defendant cannot be convicted “except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of any fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” Id. at 364, 90 S.Ct. at 1072. Finally, it is well established that Due Process requires the accused be given his right to fair notice of the criminal charges against him, so that he may prepare an adequate defense. In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682 (1948); Watson v. Jago, 558 F.2d 330 (6th Cir.1977).
This does not mean that some superfluous language in an indictment cannot be tolerated and that the prosecution must be held strictly responsible for all inartful use of the language.
“The insertion of surplus words in the indictment does not change the nature of the offense charged.” Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209, 223, 73 S.Ct. 1055, 1063, 97 L.Ed. 1557 (1953). See Ford v. United States, 273 U.S. 593, 47 S.Ct. 531, 71 L.Ed. 793 (1927); United States v. Archer, 455 F.2d 193 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 856, 93 S.Ct. 135, 34 L.Ed.2d 100 (1972); Gambill v. United States, 276 F.2d 180 (6th Cir.1960).
As stated by this court in United States v. Levinson, 405 F.2d 971 (6th Cir. 1968):
[A] valid indictment must fulfill two distinct functions. First, an indictment must inform the accused of the nature of the charges against him, with such specificity and particularity that the accused is enabled to undertake and prepare an adequate defense. Second, an indictment must be so framed that it should be evident to what extent a plea of double jeopardy is available to the accused in the event of future charges involving similar offenses.... Not all lapses from precision and correctness require that an indictment be quashed. Nonprejudicial errors and defects do not invalidate indictments which otherwise fulfill the two prime requisites....
Id. at 977.
However, we do not imply that all surplus language is harmless and non-prejudicial. Even so, an analysis of surplus words in an indictment is necessarily a nebulous task which requires us to speculate as to the effect of semantic irregularities on the trial process.
For example, in Michaud v. United States, 350 F.2d 131 (10th Cir.1965), through its instructions, the lower court added an additional element to the crime of threatening the life of the President 18 U.S.C. § 871. Specifically, the court instructed the jury that they must find that “the maker of such threats intended to carry them out himself.” Id. at 133. On direct appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court and stated:
But here the instruction was favorable to the defendant not in the sense of imposing a higher degree of proof, but rather by inserting a false issue into the case. When a false issue of magnitude sufficient to nullify proper consideration of the issues is inserted into a case, the proper administration of justice is thwarted and a conviction so based cannot stand.
Id. at 134.
In Gawne v. United States, 409 F.2d 1399 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 943, 90 S.Ct. 956, 25 L.Ed.2d 123 (1970), on direct appeal, a false issue relating to the purpose of the kidnapping was inserted into the indictment and included in the jury instructions. The court stated that in determining whether the introduction of the false issue affected the Appellant’s substantial rights:
The answer to that question turns upon whether we can “say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error. ... ”
*1313Id. at 1403, quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). The Gawne Court noted that the inclusion of the false issue could have directed “the attention of counsel and jury” and added: “If on the whole record it appeared that this circumstance interfered with the proper consideration of the real issues, reversal would be required.” Id. at 1404. However, after examining the record, the court affirmed the lower court. Its determination was based upon the following factors: (1) the essential legal issues were fully explored; (2) little evidence was introduced concerning the unnecessary elements; (3) the addition of this element could only have had an adverse effect on the prosecution’s case; and (4) the prosecution’s evidence on the real issues was overwhelming.
Finally, in United States v. Kartman, 417 F.2d 893 (9th Cir.1969), in charging the defendant with the crime of assaulting a deputy marshal under 17 U.S.C. 111, the indictment alleged as a false element “knowing him to be such officer.” The lower court found this language to be surplusage and refused to instruct the jury as to this element. On appeal, the Appellant argued that his defense was, in part, based on a lack of specific knowledge. The court stated that this alleged error as to Appellant’s presentation of his defense, by itself, did not affect Appellant’s substantial rights, however, the court reversed the conviction based upon the cumulative impact of this and other errors which occurred at trial.
In our analysis, we must reemphasize that this case, unlike the cases discussed above, does not come to us on direct appeal, but instead from state court by way of our habeas jurisdiction. While we do allow such due process claims to justify habeas relief where error impugnes fundamental fairness, the standard is necessarily much stricter where, as here, the case has already been carefully examined by a state appellate court.
Our own review of the record and applicable law leads us to the conclusion that Appellant’s rights to fair notice and fundamental due process fairness were not infringed by the inclusion of the unnecessary element of lawful seizure. All of the essential elements of the crime of theft in office were properly alleged and proven as required by Jackson v. Virginia, supra. The unnecessary element was mere surplusage and did not change the nature of the offense charged or obscure the other language of the indictment. Thus, Appellant was given fair notice of the charges against him.
In addition, Appellant made no objection to the inclusion of the unnecessary element. The inclusion of this element could only have served to benefit the Appellant by creating an additional opportunity to argue that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof. However, Appellant ignored this alternative and instead based his defense on the non-existence of the handguns.
In conclusion, it appears that the addition of the surplus words was a mere semantic afterthought. Little or no evidence was introduced as to proof of lawful seizure. Therefore, despite the fact that the unnecessary language was repeated nine times during the proceedings, no irrelevant evidence was introduced which might have misdirected the focus of the trial participants and jury. As a result, we find that the inclusion of the surplusage did not render the trial fundamentally unfair.
IV.
In his fourth assignment of error, Appellant argues that the admission of Deputy Campbell’s testimony that on the morning after the raid he observed the two pearl-handled pistols in an evidence bag marked with an evidence tag bearing the inscription “10001 Cedar Avenue” was improper in that the testimony was hearsay and violated his right of confrontation as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
We believe there is little question that Deputy Campbell’s testimony concerning the inscription was hearsay. This holds true under both Ohio Law, Potter v. Baher, 162 Ohio St. 448, 55 Ohio Op.2d 389 (1955) and federal law. See Fed.R.Evid. Rule 801. *1314It is apparent that this testimony was offered to show the sheriff’s possession and the method of handling guns in the Sheriff’s Office.
The admission of hearsay does not necessarily require reversal of a conviction. This is particularly true on collateral attack where evidentiary errors rarely justify overturning a lower court judgment. Buder v. Bell, 306 F.2d 71 (6th Cir.1962). Therefore, the issue before us is whether the admission of this testimony violated the Confrontation Clause.
Hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause are not one in the same. Evidence may be hearsay without violating the right of confrontation. Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 91 S.Ct. 210, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970); California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970). The United States Supreme Court has stated the purpose of the clause to be as follows:
In short, the Clause envisions “a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness in which the accused has an opportunity, not only of testing the recollection and sifting the conscience of the witness, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they may look at him, and judge by his demeanor upon the stand and the manner in which he gives his testimony whether he is worthy of belief.”
Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63-64, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537-2538, 65 L.Ed.2d 597, quoting Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 242-243,15 S.Ct. 337, 339-340, 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895). In the case at hand there was confrontation and cross-examination of the witness who testified as to observation of the guns.
In Ohio v. Roberts, supra, the court noted “the Framers’ preference for face-to-face accusation” Id. 448 U.S. at 65,100 S.Ct. at 2538, and stated:
In sum, when a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial the Confrontation Clause normally requires a showing that he is unavailable. Even then, his statement is admissible only if it bears adequate “indicia of reliability.” Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
Id. at 66, 100 S.Ct. at 2539 (footnote omitted).
In rejecting Appellant’s claim, the district court noted that the testimony of Campbell that someone else had written the address on the tag was sufficient to warn the jury against giving the evidence undue weight. In addition, the district court noted that the testimony of the informant Goodman (concerning Jordan and Lapsley) and of the newspaper reporter who stated that Appellant told him six handguns had been seized, was sufficient to independently establish that the handguns had been seized in the raid: The court then concluded that the testimony concerning the inscription was “neither crucial to the prosecution nor devastating to the defense.”
We find ourselves in agreement with the district court. The admission of the testimony was harmless error which did not rise to constitutional proportion and did not violate the Confrontation Clause. We believe that the testimony concerning the writing on the evidence tag carried sufficient “indicia of reliability” to satisfy the Confrontation Clause. First, there was testimony to the effect that the evidence seized at the raid was handled in the usual manner of the Sheriff’s Department. This included placing seized weapons into evidence bags and marking those bags with evidence tags. This would imply that the guns were properly marked with the rest of the evidence seized in the raid. Second, there was no reason to believe that either the declarant or Deputy Campbell had any apparent reason to misrepresent the facts. Third, even had the testimony concerning the notation on the tag been excluded, Deputy Campbell had testified that the guns were in an evidence bag and marked with an evidence tag. This would have been sufficient to establish that the guns were in the posses*1315sion of the Sheriff’s Department at the time of the theft.
V.
The remainder of the alleged errors concerning the language of the indictment can be dispensed with quickly. In his 5th assignment of error, the Appellant argues that the State Appellate Court violated his due process rights by failing to apply Rule 30 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 30 reads as follows:
“... A party may not assign as error the giving or failure to give any instructions unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating specifically the matter to which he objects and the grounds for his objection. ...”
Appellant contends that since the defendant is bound by Rule 30, the State is so bound also. Therefore, the State should not be allowed to contend that the language inclusion in the jury instruction relating to the lawful seizure of the handguns is immaterial.
We reject Appellant’s arguments. Having found that the lawful seizure language was surplusage, the instruction relating to that language is equally without effect.
In his 8th assignment of error, Appellant contends that by finding Appellant guilty without any evidence of the lawful seizure of the handguns, the jury violated its oath. Once again, we find no merit to this argument. Having already determined that the lawful seizure language was unnecessary, it could have been properly disregarded by the jury without violation of its oath.
VI.
In his 7th assignment of error, Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction on the charge of intimidation of a public servant in the discharge of his duty as defined by Ohio Rev.Code, § 2921.03.
Appellant’s argument can be broken down into two parts. First, he contends that Campbell’s status as a deputy sheriff placed upon him no particular duty to investigate and report illegal activities of the Sheriff’s Department. As to this argument, we agree with the state court’s interpretation of its statute that “a deputy has an implicit duty to see that the law is upheld.” State v. Payne, supra 7 0.0.3d at 439. Therefore, Campbell’s investigation of the alleged irregularities was within the scope of his public duty as a deputy sheriff. Secondly, Appellant argues that the alleged threats did not amount to intimidation. Giving due deference to the jury’s verdict, we find that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s decision as to the intimidation conviction. Our determination in this matter is directed by the rule announced in Jackson v. Virginia, supra, that “the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789.
Finally, in his last assignment of error, Appellant contends that the constitutional infirmities alleged as to the theft in office charge entwined with the proof of the intimidation charge and resulted in a violation of his due process right to fundamental fairness. Although we consider this to be an ingenious argument, it fails for two reasons. First, we have already determined that those errors which may have occurred within the context of the proof of the theft in office charge were not of constitutional dimension. Second, the issue of the intimidation involved mainly a question of fact. The jury disbelieved Appellant’s evidence. Proof of the theft in office charge and of the intimidation charge were sufficiently independent to have satisfied Appellant’s right to due process.
VII.
It has been urged that the cumulative effect of the numerous errors which occurred in the trial in the state courts require reversal. The majority of this panel believe that none of the claimed errors are of constitutional proportion and that *1316the cumulative error rule should not apply in this case.
This case is to be differentiated from some in which the rule has been applied. Appellant's guilt as to Count II has been sufficiently established if the State’s witnesses are believed. In addition, the trial, of which complaint is made, was in the courts of the State of Ohio. Appellant carried his case to the highest court of that State. Although he obtained a well written dissent, the majority of the state judges reviewing this record did not feel the errors were sufficient to grant a re-trial. This is an important distinction.
As we have pointed out the individual errors claimed primarily presented issues of state law and not of federal constitutional proportion. Their cumulative effect did not, in our judgment, impugn fundamental fairness or otherwise deprive Payne of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
VIII.
In conclusion, we find no error in the trial which is of constitutional proportion and as a result, affirm the district court as to the intimidation conviction and the theft in office conviction.

. The Honorable Ann Aldrich, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio presiding.

. The raid was conducted pursuant to a search warrant.

. The magistrate’s report contains the only statement of an argument that evidence existed that the weapons were lawfully seized. The magistrate reasoned that, although weapons were not explicitly referred to in the search warrant, the reference to other illegal paraphernalia was sufficient to justify the seizure of the guns. In addition, the magistrate further reasoned that, considering the large scale of the raid, the seizure of weapons was reasonable in order to protect the officers involved. This question of the reasonableness of the seizure is not before us. However, we note that the magistrate’s findings as to the meaning of “illegal paraphernalia” is largely speculation not supported by the record.