Barker v. Yukins

• Decision Date: 11 August 1999
• Docket Number: RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES,PETITIONER-APPELLANT,No. 98-1237,98-1237
• Citation: 199 F.3d 867
• Parties: (6th Cir. 1999) STACEY BARKER,, v. JOAN YUKINS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WARDEN OF THE SCOTT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., Argued:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 867

199 F.3d 867 (6th Cir. 1999)

STACEY BARKER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. JOAN YUKINS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WARDEN OF THE SCOTT CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

No. 98-1237

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Argued: August 11, 1999

Decided: December 15, 1999

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 97-71292--Gerald E. Rosen, District Judge.

Stuart G. Friedman (argued and briefed), Ann Arbor, MI, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Diane L. Galbraith (argued and briefed), Office of the Attorney General, Habeas Corpus Division, Lansing, MI, for Respondents-Appellees.

Keith and Ryan, Circuit Judges; HULL,^* District Judge.

OPINION

Damon J. Keith, Circuit Judge.

Petitioner Stacey Barker appeals from a district court judgment denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Barker contends that she was denied her constitutional right to a jury trial when the Michigan Supreme Court found that an erroneous jury instruction given during her state court trial was harmless. For the reasons discussed below, this panel agrees, and reverses the district court's denial of the writ. We grant a conditional writ of habeas corpus, which shall become unconditional unless the State of Michigan commences trial proceedings within 180 days of this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

Factual Background

Petitioner Stacey Barker worked as a companion for a resident of a senior citizens' complex. During her frequent visits to the senior citizens' complex, Barker met and began a friendship with another resident, 81-year old Frank Madsen.

Barker admits to killing Madsen on the evening of November 5, 1986, but claims she did so in self defense. Barker testified that Madsen called her on November 5th and asked her to visit. While they were watching television, Barker testified that Madsen began touching her and pulling on her clothing. Barker stated that she repeatedly asked Madsen to stop, but he refused to do so. Barker became frightened by Madsen's behavior. In an effort to end the attack, Barker grabbed a small wooden statute and struck Madsen on the head several times. Unswayed by these blows, Barker testified that Madsen persisted in his attack by grabbing her harder, pulling on her clothing and attempting to kiss her. At some point during the struggle, Madsen backed Barker into the kitchen. Barker grabbed a knife which was lying around and repeatedly stabbed Madsen.¹ Madsen subsequently died of his injuries.

Procedural Background

Petitioner Barker was first tried in state court on first degree murder charges in October of 1987. The jury was unable to reach a verdict. Barker was retried before a different jury in November of 1987, and was ultimately convicted of first degree murder for the death of Madsen. She was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Barker appealed her conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals, rasing three assignments of error. People v. Barker, 446 N.W.2d 549 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). Only one of those assignments of error, whether the trial court erred in refusing to specifically instruct the jury that Petitioner was entitled to use deadly force to resist an imminent rape, is relevant for purposes of the instant appeal.² As to that assignment of error, the Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's failure to deliver the requested instruction was not erroneous. See id. at 551-52. The court reasoned that the instruction the trial court did provide adequately instructed the jury that a defendant may lawfully use lethal force in self defense if the person honestly believes she is in danger of death or serious bodily injury. See id. at 552. The court further concluded that a defendant is not entitled to have the general self defense instruction tailored to specifically instruct the jury that deadly force may be used to resist a particular type of assault, in this case, a rape. See id. at 551-52. Thus, the court upheld Barker's conviction.

On review, the Michigan Supreme Court disagreed with the Michigan Court of Appeals and found that the trial court did err in refusing to instruct the jury that Barker would be entitled to use force, even deadly force, if she believed she was about to be raped. People v. Barker, 468 N.W.2d 492, 493 (Mich. 1991). The Michigan Supreme Court, however, found that the error was harmless because no reasonable juror would have believed Petitioner's claim of self defense. See id. at 493-94. The Michigan Supreme Court found it persuasive that Madsen was 81 years old, walked with a cane, and was described as unsteady on his feet, while Barker was in her early twenties, was five feet seven inches tall and weighed 170 pounds. See id. at 494. The court also found it significant that Madsen suffered ten blows to the head and was stabbed thirty two times. See id. On the basis of that evidence, the court concluded that no reasonable juror could have believed such force was necessary to prevent a rape by the "enfeebled" victim. See id.

Subsequent to the Michigan Supreme Court's ruling upholding her conviction, Petitioner Barker filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court on March 27, 1997. The district court, adopting a report and recommendation submitted by a magistrate judge, denied Barker's petition for habeas relief on January 30, 1998.

On August 12, 1998, this Court granted Barker's motion for a certificate of appealability, limited to the question of whether Ms. Barker's due process rights were violated by failing to instruct the jury that she had a right to use lethal force to resist a sexual assault. The motion was denied as to the other issues raised by Petitioner.

II. DISCUSSION

Applicability of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

An appellate court reviews a district court's decision to deny or grant a writ of habeas corpus de novo, but it reviews the district court's factual findings only for clear error. See McQueen v. Scroggy, 99 F.3d 1302, 1310 (6th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1257, 117 S.Ct. 2422, 138 L.Ed.2d 185 (1977).

We must further consider the substantive standards utilized when reviewing state court decisions which are challenged by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court, by adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, found that Petitioner Barker's claim for habeas relief should be analyzed pursuant to the standards established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"). Under AEDPA, a petition for writ of habeas corpus may only be granted where the state court proceedings: (1) resulted in a decision contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law; or (2) resulted in a decision which was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at the state court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Petitioner argues on appeal, as she did below, that this matter is not governed by the requirements established by AEDPA.³ Since her state criminal appeals were completed prior to the passage of AEDPA, Petitioner Barker contends that applying AEDPA to her claims would result in an improper, retroactive application of new legislation, and would unlawfully delegate the constitutional adjudication power of this federal appellate court to state court.

It is now well settled that AEDPA applies to all habeas petitions filed on or after its April 24, 1996 effective date. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 336, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2068, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997) (holding that the new provisions of chapter 153 [which include § 2254(d)] generally apply only to cases filed after AEDPA became effective); see also Harpster v. Ohio, 128 F.3d 322, 326 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1112, 118 S.Ct. 1044, 140 L.Ed.2d 109 (1998) ("Because petitioner filed his application for a writ of habeas corpus on July 26, 1996, after the effective date of AEDPA, the revised § 2254(d) governs our inquiry...."); Herbert, 160 F.3d at 1134 ("The AEDPA applies to all habeas cases filed after April 24, 1996.").

Clearly, then, the fact that Barker's state criminal appeals were completed prior to the effective date of AEDPA is of absolutely no consequence in ascertaining whether AEDPA is or is not applicable. Rather, the determining factor is whether Barker's petition for habeas relief was filed before or after AEDPA's effective date. Since Barker filed for a writ of habeas corpus on March 27, 1997, well after the April 24, 1996 effective date of AEDPA, the district court properly concluded that the standards set forth in AEDPA are applicable to Barker's habeas.

Analysis of Petitioner's Habeas Claim

Over defense counsel's objection, the trial court delivered a general instruction on the issue of self defense which informed the jury that a defendant is entitled to use force, even deadly force, if the defendant believed she was in danger of death or serious bodily harm. Petitioner's counsel had requested, but was denied, that the instruction specifically inform the jury, as required by Michigan law, that the use of deadly force is lawful where one is in danger of death or grave bodily harm, including a sexual assault. See People v. Heflin, 456 N.W.2d 10, 22-23 (1990) (finding that where there is an evidentiary basis, a court must instruct the jury that force, including deadly force, may be used to repel an imminent sexual assault). The Michigan Supreme Court, citing to its decision in Heflin, found that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that a defendant may lawfully use force, including deadly force, to repel an imminent sexual assault. Barker, 468 N.W.2d at 493. However, the Michigan Supreme Court proceeded to conclude that such an error was harmless. Id. Thus, the issue raised by Petitioner Barker's habeas petition is...