Cooper v. Campbell, 78-1534

• Decision Date: 25 April 1979
• Docket Number: No. 78-1534,78-1534
• Parties: James Dale COOPER, Appellant, v. Jerry CAMPBELL, Superintendent, Arkansas Department of Correction, Cummins Unit, and Attorney General, State of Arkansas, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 628

597 F.2d 628

James Dale COOPER, Appellant, v. Jerry CAMPBELL, Superintendent, Arkansas Department of Correction, Cummins Unit, and Attorney General State of Arkansas, Appellees.

No. 78-1534.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 11, 1978.

Decided April 25, 1979.

Robert E. Hornberger, of Shaw & Ledbetter, Fort Smith, Ark., on brief for appellant.

Joseph H. Purvis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for appellees; Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., on brief.

Before HEANEY, ROSS and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

James Dale Cooper, petitioner in this habeas corpus proceeding, is serving a sentence of life imprisonment as the result of a jury verdict in the state Circuit Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, finding him guilty of first degree murder. Cooper's judgment of conviction entered in November 1974 was affirmed on appeal by the Arkansas Supreme Court, as was the subsequent denial of his petition for state post-conviction relief.

Cooper sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. ¹ On April 4, 1978, the district court dismissed Cooper's petition on the merits after a hearing. We affirm.

I.

Petitioner raises thirteen issues on appeal. As his first ground for relief, he charges that the trial judge failed to administer a timely oath to the jury in compliance with Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43-2109, thereby violating petitioner's rights to a jury trial, a fair trial and due process.

Apparently as the result of an oversight, the jury was sworn after opening statements by counsel for both parties but before any evidence had been presented. However, after opening arguments, the court recessed for the day admonishing the jury not to discuss the case. The next morning when the oath was administered, the trial judge specifically cautioned the jury that they were not to consider the opening statements as evidence. The judge repeated this admonition in his general instructions at the end of the trial. We find no evidence that the delay in swearing the jury prejudiced petitioner's rights to a jury trial, fair trial or due process. ²

II.

Cooper alleges that he was tried before a jury which was biased against him as the result of pretrial publicity. He relies on Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961) in which the Supreme Court ruled that

the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, "indifferent" jurors. The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. * * * His verdict must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial.

Id. at 722, 81 S.Ct. at 1649.

However, the Supreme Court also stated that:

It is not required, however, that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. This is particularly true in criminal cases. To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.

Id. at 722-23, 81 S.Ct. at 1642-1643. (Emphasis added.)

On the night of the crime, June 25, 1972, Cooper engaged in a shooting spree in Hartford, Arkansas, a small town in Sebastian County. Herbert Steele and his son were riding around Hartford after hearing police reports about the shooting. A shot hit Mr. Steele, and he ultimately died. Cooper then eluded police for eighteen months until he was found hiding under a floor in his house.

In support of his petition for habeas corpus, petitioner introduced newspaper accounts of the murder and police search. These articles were circulated in Sebastian County and named petitioner, but, with one exception, ³ they were all published during June 1972. Petitioner was not tried until November 1974, almost two and one-half years after this publicity. ⁴ See Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 802, 95 S.Ct. 2031, 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975).

The voir dire testimony at petitioner's trial was not transcribed. Cooper testified at his habeas corpus hearing that many prospective jurors during the voir dire examination admitted having preconceived opinions about his case. However, Cooper conceded that these jurors also stated they were capable of changing any such opinions as the result of the evidence presented at trial.

Petitioner's trial attorney, the Public Defender for Sebastian County, testified that those prospective jurors who had expressed opinions concerning petitioner's guilt or innocence were struck from the panel, that none of the twelve jurors actually selected had indicated preconceived opinions and that the mood or atmosphere in the courtroom was not unusual. He also stated that in his judgment there had not been enough pretrial publicity to warrant moving for a change of venue. ⁵ We affirm the district court's finding that Cooper was not deprived of a fair trial or due process by the jury's exposure to pretrial publicity.

III.

As a further ground for relief, petitioner contends that he was entitled to have the jury instructed on the lesser included offenses of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. However, See DeBerry v. Wolff, 513 F.2d 1336, 1338-39 (8th Cir. 1975):

Claimed errors in instructions to the jury are generally not of such constitutional magnitude and do not state a claim for habeas corpus relief. * * * More particularly the courts have held that the trial court's failure to give a lesser included offense instruction is not normally such a constitutional error or "fundamental defect" as to allow collateral review under habeas corpus.

Accord, James v. Reese, 546 F.2d 325, 327 (9th Cir. 1976); Bonner v. Henderson, 517 F.2d 135, 136 (5th Cir. 1975).

Furthermore, the jury was charged on the lesser included offense of second degree murder but returned a verdict of murder in the first degree. Thus the failure to give instructions on other lesser offenses, even if error, was clearly harmless.

IV.

Cooper next asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for first degree murder. The trial record reveals that in the course of his shooting spree on June 25, 1972, Cooper threatened, shot and injured several persons. Eyewitnesses testified to these actions by Cooper, but no eyewitnesses actually saw Cooper shoot Herbert Steele.

Herbert Steele, Jr., testified that he and his father, Herbert H. Steele, had just driven their truck away from their house when a bullet hit the truck. They then drove on approximately eighty feet when another bullet struck, inflicting the fatal wound in Herbert H. Steele's lung.

We agree with the district court that the state was not required to produce an eyewitness who actually saw Cooper fire the shot which killed Mr. Steele. A great deal of circumstantial evidence was presented to indicate that petitioner fired this shot.

On the issue of intent, malice, wilfulness or premeditation, the district court emphasized Cooper's use of a high-powered rifle, the absence of any provocation by the victim or the others who were injured, the period of time petitioner's shooting spree consumed and the fact that two shots were fired at the Steeles' truck, the fatal shot occurring an appreciable length of time after the first shot. Cooper then fled and eluded the police for eighteen months.

Petitioner would be entitled to habeas corpus relief on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence "only if his conviction is totally devoid of evidentiary support." Spratlin v. Solem, 577 F.2d 56, 59 (8th Cir. 1978); Wilson v. Parratt, 540 F.2d 415, 416 (8th Cir. 1976). We agree with the district court that the evidence was sufficient to support petitioner's conviction.

V.

Next petitioner alleges that the following "exculpatory" evidence was withheld from him and would have enabled him to present a more effective defense: (1) certain spent .38 caliber cartridge shells and live .410 cartridges found in Hartford after June 25, 1972, (2) some delay in taking Mr. Steele to the hospital after he was shot, and (3) a traffic accident involving the vehicle carrying Mr. Steele to the hospital.

"(S)uppression by the prosecution of (requested) evidence favorable to an accused * * * violates due process * * *." Austin v. Wyrick, 535 F.2d 443, 445 (8th Cir. 1976), Citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). However, we find that this evidence was neither exculpatory nor withheld.

Mr. Steele died as the direct result of a shot in the lung from a .243 caliber rifle, not a .38 or .410 bullet. Furthermore, he died almost instantly after being shot, so that the delay and traffic accident were irrelevant to the cause of death.

The state prosecutor testified before the district court that his office had an "open file policy" granting access to all files and exhibits upon the request of a defense attorney. In addition, petitioner conceded before the district court that he knew about the cartridges and traffic accident three months before his trial.

VI.

The prosecution introduced evidence of Cooper's entire shooting episode on June 25, 1972, including injuries he inflicted on persons other than Mr. Steele. Petitioner objects that this "other crimes" evidence prejudiced his right to a fair trial.

Evidence of a defendant's criminal acts not charged in the indictment or information "may be presented when 'they are so blended or connected with the one on trial as that proof of one incidentally...