Abdullah v. State
| Decision Date | 08 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | DOCKET NO. 46497 |
| Parties | Azad Haji ABDULLAH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Kormanik & Sneed, LLP, Boise, for appellant. John R. Kormanik argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. L. LaMont Anderson argued.
This appeal concerns a successive petition for post-conviction relief in a capital case that was summarily dismissed by the district court. In 2004, a jury found Azad Haji Abdullah guilty of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and felony injury to a child. He was sentenced to death for the murder. Abdullah filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was dismissed by the district court in 2011. Abdullah then filed a consolidated appeal that included a direct appeal from his convictions and sentences and an appeal from the district court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. This Court, in State v. Abdullah , 158 Idaho 386, 348 P.3d 1 (2015), affirmed the convictions, sentences, and denial of post-conviction relief.
In 2013—after the district court issued its order dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief, but prior to this Court's issuance of Abdullah in 2015—Abdullah filed a successive petition for post-conviction relief ("Successive Petition"). The Successive Petition was subsequently amended in 2016 and 2017. Abdullah also filed a pro se supplement to the Successive Petition ("Supplement") in 2017 that was incorporated with the Successive Petition. The Successive Petition and Supplement include substantive claims, claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court determined that Abdullah was not entitled to post-conviction relief and summarily dismissed his Successive Petition and Supplement. We affirm the district court's dismissal.
The procedural background associated with this case is extensive, dating back to 2002 when Abdullah was first indicted. State v. Abdullah , 158 Idaho 386, 405, 348 P.3d 1, 20 (2015). The procedural history that is relevant to this appeal, however, can be summarized in a few paragraphs.
In 2004, a jury found Abdullah guilty of murdering his wife, Angela "Angie" Abdullah. Id. at 158 Idaho at 412, 348 P.3d at 27. The jury also found Abdullah guilty of first-degree arson, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and felony injury to a child. Id. In March 2005, "[t]he district court sentenced Abdullah to death for first-degree murder, to twenty-five years imprisonment for arson, to fifteen years imprisonment for each count of attempted first-degree murder, and to ten years imprisonment for felony injury to a child, a total of eighty years imprisonment." Id. at 413, 348 P.3d at 28. Abdullah promptly filed a notice of appeal. Id. Abdullah also filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Id. The district court appointed the State Appellate Public Defender ("SAPD") to represent Abdullah on his direct appeal and on his petition for post-conviction relief. Id.
In August 2008, Abdullah filed a final, amended petition for post-conviction relief. Id. at 414, 348 P.3d at 29. The district court held an evidentiary hearing in 2010 and a final hearing in 2011. Id. The district court concluded that Abdullah was not entitled to post-conviction relief and, in October 2011, entered a final judgment dismissing Abdullah's petition. Id. Abdullah filed a notice of appeal the following month. Id.
This Court ruled on Abdullah's consolidated appeal—which included a direct appeal from his convictions and sentences and an appeal from the district court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief—in 2015. Id. at 530, 348 P.3d at 145. This Court affirmed "[t]he judgments of conviction and sentences pronounced by the district court, including the death penalty ...." Id. This Court also affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing Abdullah's petition for post-conviction relief. Id.
In July 2013—after the district court dismissed Abdullah's first petition for post-conviction relief, but prior to this Court's ruling concerning his consolidated appeal—Abdullah filed his Successive Petition. The district court stayed the proceedings, however, pending the outcome of Abdullah's consolidated appeal. After this Court issued its ruling in Abdullah , the district court lifted the stay. Abdullah amended his Successive Petition in 2016 and 2017. With the district court's consent, Abdullah also filed his pro se Supplement in 2017, which was incorporated with the Successive Petition. During the course of the proceedings, the district court took judicial notice of the transcripts from Abdullah's trial, but it did not expressly take judicial notice of the clerk's record and exhibits.
Ultimately, the district court determined that Abdullah was not entitled to post-conviction relief and issued an order summarily dismissing his Successive Petition and Supplement. The court entered a judgment in November 2018, and Abdullah timely appealed to this Court.
The factual background associated with this case is outlined in detail in State v. Abdullah , 158 Idaho 386, 405–14, 348 P.3d 1, 20–29 (2015). Concisely stated, "Abdullah murdered his wife [Angie] in their home and then set fire to the home with two of the children (A.H. and M.A.) and a young friend (S.S.) asleep inside and one of their children (N.A.) in the backyard." Id. at 405, 348 P.3d at 20. The facts relevant to this appeal largely relate to specific aspects of Abdullah's trial, first post-conviction relief proceedings, and consolidated appeal.
At trial, Abdullah was precluded from introducing certain evidence regarding his wife's life insurance policy, history of suicidal ideation, and post-partum depression. In Abdullah , this Court held that the district court did not err when it excluded evidence pertaining to the life insurance policy. Id. at 440, 348 P.3d at 55. We specifically held that "[e]ven if the existence of the life insurance policy was relevant, the district court properly exercised its discretion to determine the probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, and waste of time." Id.
The life insurance policies were an extraneous piece of information that had little to do with the case. The district court did not err by excluding evidence of Angie's life insurance policies. Further, any error was harmless because beyond a reasonable doubt any error in the exclusion of Angie's life insurance policy did not contribute to the verdict obtained.
Id. This Court did not explicitly consider the district court's rulings concerning evidence about suicidal ideation and post-partum depression when deciding Abdullah , but did observe that Abdullah questioned the State's witnesses about suicidal ideation and depression. See id. at 436, 348 P.3d at 51.
At trial, the district court admitted certain out-of-court statements made by Abdullah's wife. Id. at 431, 348 P.3d at 46. The statements were "elicited by the State through the testimony of (1) Angie's obstetrician Dr. Brenda Williams; (2) her nurse practitioner Velma Seabolt; (3) her therapist Gina Wolfe Seybold; and (4) attorney Deborah Kristal." Id. Several of the statements were critical of Abdullah. Id. at 431–37, 348 P.3d at 46–52.
In Abdullah , this Court held that the district court did not err by admitting Angie's out-of-court statements. Id. Further, this Court held that even if the out-of-court statements were improperly admitted, it was harmless error:
According to Abdullah, this evidence was improperly admitted to show Abdullah was "a bad husband" and to prejudice the jury against him. Assuming all of [the] out-of-court statements were inadmissible, any error beyond a reasonable doubt did not contribute to the verdict obtained based on the overwhelming evidence against Abdullah and the district court's instructions to the jury.
At trial, the district court admitted several out-of-court statements made by Abdullah. Id. at 437–39, 348 P.3d at 52–54. Specifically, Abdullah's co-workers testified that Abdullah had told them that it was not illegal to kill your wife in Kurdistan if she was unfaithful. Id. at 437–38, 348 P.3d at 52–53. The district court admitted Abdullah's out-of-court statements because they were relevant and went to his state of mind. Id. at 437, 348 P.3d at 52.
This Court held that the district court did not err when it admitted the testimony pertaining to Abdullah's out-of-court statements:
The district court in this case recognized Abdullah's statement was prejudicial, but the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Based on the record, the district court perceived the admission of Abdullah's out-of-court statements as a matter of discretion, acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently within I.R.E. 403, and reached its decision to admit the statements through an exercise of reason. There was no error.
During the guilt-phase of Abdullah's trial, the prosecutor utilized a PowerPoint presentation during closing argument. Some of the PowerPoint slides showed Abdullah wearing a kufi cap—a round cap commonly worn by Muslim men. Another PowerPoint slide was titled "Alibi Hoax."
During Abdullah's first post-conviction relief proceedings, the district court issued its Order re: Conflict Counsel. In its order, the district court stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial