Opinion
Case No. 99-3396-DES
June 19, 2000
Rossevelt Scover, Pro Se, El Dorado Correctional Facility, El Dorado, KS, for Petitioner.
Jared S. Maag, Office of Attorney General, Topeka, KS, for Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on a petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Petitioner appeals his conviction of voluntary manslaughter. Petitioner argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction and the trial court erred in admitting gruesome photographs and videotape. The court finds that the briefs filed by the parties and the state court record are sufficient to resolve this case. For the reasons set forth below, petitioner's application for habeas relief is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
A jury found Roosevelt Scover, III, guilty of one count of voluntary manslaughter in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3403, two counts of burglary in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3715, and two counts of theft in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3701. The trial judge sentenced Scover to a term of eighty-five months for voluntary manslaughter, fourteen months on the primary count of burglary and six months on the remaining burglary count and two theft counts. The burglary and theft counts were to run concurrently with one another and consecutively to the voluntary manslaughter count.
On November 9, 1995, Geno Edmonds, Samuel Taylor, Tyrone Spears, Maceo Bozeman, and petitioner gathered at a house on 26th street, in Kansas City, Kansas. Bozeman was depressed because his girlfriend declined his marriage proposal. To help Bozeman get his mind off his problems, the group decided to steal cars and go joyriding. The five men walked up the street a few blocks when they found a black Chevrolet Blazer ("Blazer"). Bozeman started the Blazer with a screwdriver, as the others stood as look-outs. At that time, Edmonds was armed with a .410 shotgun, Taylor had a .38 revolver, and petitioner had a 9 mm automatic. After they stole the Blazer, they drove back to the house on 26th street. After removing several items from the Blazer, including a CD player, the group left to steal a Jeep Cherokee ("Cherokee").
Once the group found a Cherokee, Bozeman broke out the back window and started the Cherokee by breaking the steering column. Taylor drove the Cherokee with Spears as a passenger, and Bozeman drove the Blazer with Edmonds and petitioner as passengers. Taylor had trouble driving the Cherokee because the steering was malfunctioning, so the group pulled over in an alley. Bozeman and petitioner got out of the Blazer to work on the Cherokee.
At trial, Edmonds testified that he overheard the two men talking as he sat in the front seat of the Blazer. Bozeman told petitioner, "you don't know how to steal cars." The two men then argued about whether petitioner knew how to steal a car. Bozeman finally threw his hands down and asked if they were ready to go. Petitioner said yes. As Bozeman turned to walk back to the Blazer, petitioner reached into his waistband, drew his weapon and fired, hitting Bozeman in the right ear at point blank range. The pathologist, Dr. Mitchell, testified that there was soot deposits on the injury to the right ear, indicating the shot was at close range. Bozeman fell, stood back up, and ran away with petitioner and Taylor chasing him with their guns drawn. Edmonds testified that he believed petitioner was the person firing because he saw flames coming out of petitioner's gun. Petitioner fired the gun six more times, as Bozeman jumped a chain-link fence.
At this point, petitioner indicated his gun jammed. Petitioner ran back to the Blazer and drove off, with Taylor following in the Cherokee. The steering column kept malfunctioning so Taylor rolled the Cherokee into some bushes. The group then abandoned the Cherokee. Bozeman's body was found the next morning not far from the fence. The police found three empty shells at the scene, indicating the shooting was done by an automatic weapon.
Petitioner appealed his voluntary manslaughter conviction, raising five issues, including insufficient evidence of voluntary manslaughter and court error in admitting gruesome photographs and videotape, which were prejudicial. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner's convictions, but vacated and remanded the case for re-sentencing. The Kansas Supreme Court denied review. Scover was re-sentenced, and the primary burglary term was reduced to six months. On December 23, 1999, petitioner filed his writ for habeas corpus review in federal court.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A petitioner is entitled to federal habeas corpus relief on claims adjudicated on the merits in a state court proceeding only if he establishes that the state court decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or . . . was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and (2). These standards, imposed by the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, increase the degree of deference afforded to state court decisions. Houchin v. Zavaras, 107 F.3d 1465, 1470 (10th Cir. 1997).
III. DISCUSSION A. Sufficiency of Evidence
The petitioner claims there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter. A federal court may grant habeas relief only if it determines that "no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979). "The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the 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. at 319. There is a presumption that "the trier of fact resolved any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution." Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 296-97 (1992). The federal court does not weigh the evidence, and "must accept the jury's resolution of the evidence as long as it is within the bounds of reason." Kelly v. Roberts, 998 F.2d 802, 808 (10th Cir. 1993). "To be sufficient, the evidence supporting the conviction must be substantial; that is, it must do more than raise a mere suspicion of guilt." Id. After examining the record with deference to the state court's findings of fact, the court finds that petitioner's claim lacks merit.
Voluntary manslaughter requires a showing that petitioner intentionally killed Bozeman and that the killing was upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3403 (1995). Petitioner argues that there was no quarrel. However, the testimony of Edmonds showed that Bozeman insulted petitioner, questioning whether petitioner knew how to steal a car. The insult led to a conflict, and the shooting occurred immediately thereafter. This evidence is sufficient for a rational fact finder to conclude that the shooting occurred intentionally and upon a sudden quarrel.
In support of his insufficiency claim, petitioner attacks the credibility of Edmonds and Taylor. Petitioner claims the men had grudges against the victim. Petitioner points out that blood was found on Edmond's shoes and Edmonds had fired a shotgun during the incident. Petitioner also questions whether Edmonds saw petitioner shoot Bozeman because he saw flames coming from petitioner's gun. However, the credibility of witnesses is within the province of the jury and generally beyond the scope of sufficiency review. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 330 (1995).
When viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as required by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979), a reasonable jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is substantial and sufficient to support the jury's finding that petitioner was guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
B. Prejudicial Photographs and Video
Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in admitting gruesome photographs and video when the prejudicial effect vastly outweighed any probative value. "Federal habeas review is not available to correct state law evidentiary errors; rather it is limited to violations of constitutional rights." Smallwood v. Gibson, 191 F.3d 1257, 1275 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991)). Therefore, the court must determine whether the admission of photographs and videotape rendered petitioner's trial fundamentally unfair. Jackson v. Shanks, 143 F.3d 1313, 1322 (10th Cir. 1998). In analyzing such issues, federal courts impose a great deal of self-restraint. Id.
After reviewing the photographs and videotape, the Kansas Court of Appeals declared that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the same. The evidence was used to show the extent and nature of the wounds were in the manner described by the state's witness and pathologist. This decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Petitioner has not forwarded any persuasive reasons to disturb that ruling. Given the probative nature of the photographs and videotape and the evidence supporting petitioner's conviction, the gruesome photographs and videotape were not so unduly prejudicial as to render petitioner's trial fundamentally unfair.
IV. CONCLUSION
There was sufficient evidence to support petitioner's conviction of voluntary manslaughter, and petitioner has not shown that the gruesome photographs and videotape admitted by the trial court rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. Therefore, petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief is denied.
IS THEREFORE BY THE COURT ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied.
Dated this ________ day of ____, at Topeka, Kansas.