Hinton v. Attorney Gen.

• Decision Date: 03 November 2020
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 18-14508 (PGS)
• Parties: TALBERT HINTON Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

TALBERT HINTON Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Respondent.

Civ. No. 18-14508 (PGS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

November 3, 2020

OPINION

PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, Talbert Hinton ("Petitioner" or "Hinton"), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the following reasons, the habeas petition is denied and a certificate of appealability shall not issue.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The factual background giving rise to Petitioner's judgment of conviction was stated by the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division during Petitioner's direct appeal as follows:

In December 2012, then five-year old Lisa [FN 1] went to McDonald's with defendant, her mother's friend. Lisa testified after she finished her meal, defendant drove her to his grandmother's home. While she sat on a bed and listened to music, defendant took off his pants but not his underwear. He then took her leggings down to her knees, but left her underwear intact.

[FN1] The child's name is a pseudonym to protect her privacy.

Lisa stated defendant then got on top of her, as she lay face down. She felt his chest touch her back and his stomach touch her buttocks. She began to cry, because she believed she would get in trouble with her mother for not returning home as soon as she finished eating at McDonald's. Defendant then got off of her and, after she pulled her leggings up, took her home. Lisa testified the first person she told about the incident was her teacher, because the child found the teacher trustworthy and had a good relationship with her.

During a videotaped interview conducted by a detective of the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, which was viewed by the jury, Lisa stated while at his grandmother's home, defendant pulled her pants and underwear down to her knees. As a result, she started to cry and told him to stop. However, he then touched her buttocks with his penis and was moving it "back and up." She described his penis as hard and, at one point, inserted it "inside [my] butt," which hurt "a little bit." He then stopped and, after getting her a "rag" to dry her face, drove her home.

Lisa's teacher testified that, in June 2013, she sat next to Lisa on a bus, which was taking Lisa's entire Kindergarten class on a field trip to a park. Lisa spontaneously said she had gone to a McDonald's with a "mean and nasty" man, who later took her to his grandmother's home, where he pulled down her underwear. The child further stated she started to cry and told him to stop, so he took her home.

After arriving at the park, the teacher approached the teacher assistant for the Kindergarten class and told her to talk to Lisa; the teacher could not recall if she informed the assistant what Lisa had related to her. Finally, the teacher testified that, after the Christmas vacation in 2012, the child was "a little withdrawn" and "not as eager to participate."

The teacher assistant testified she asked Lisa what she had talked about with the teacher. Lisa reported her mother's friend took her to McDonald's and then to his home. While there, he took off his and her clothes, and rubbed his body against hers. The assistant also testified that after the Christmas vacation in 2012, the child had an "attitude" and would get "upset about anything." The teacher and the assistant reported the child's comments to the school principal, who contacted the police.

Lisa was treated by a pediatrician who focuses her practice on children who allegedly have been abused. The pediatrician testified the child told her an adult named "Tal" took her to his grandmother's home and asked her to lie down on her stomach. He then put his penis on top of her buttocks, which "hurt a little." Lisa also told the pediatrician she was concerned about physical abuse between her mother and stepfather, and further mentioned her mother had hit her with a belt, but stated the belt did not causeany injuries or marks. In fact, Lisa stated she had never been physically abused by an adult in her home. The pediatrician testified she did not have any concern the child was being abused in her home.

The pediatrician further testified that Lisa's mother informed her the child's behavior changed after the time of the subject incident. Lisa's mother related to the pediatrician that Lisa became defiant, continued to do well academically. The doctor commented exposure to domestic violence can cause behavioral changes, including becoming more defiant.

Lisa's mother also testified. She stated around Christmas 2012, she consented to defendant taking Lisa to McDonald's for lunch. The mother recalled they had been gone for a long period of time and she became worried, but Lisa did come home that afternoon and reported she had had fun while she was out.

Months later, the mother received a call from the teacher assistant; following that call, the mother asked Lisa what she had reported to the teacher and the teacher assistant. The child said defendant took her to his mother's house, pulled her pants and underwear down, made her lie on the bed, laid on top of her, and rubbed his penis on her buttocks.

During cross-examination, defense counsel broached the subject of domestic violence between the mother and Lisa's stepfather. The State objected, and during a sidebar conference defense counsel explained she wanted to "infer possible third-party guilt" by suggesting another in Lisa's home had abused the child. The court sustained the objection, noting there was no evidence the stepfather or any third party committed the acts about which Lisa complained.

The defense attorney then advised the court she wished to question the mother about hitting the child with a belt, to suggest the change in the child's demeanor around the time of the subject incident was the result of her mother's abuse. The court sustained the State's objection, noting there was no evidence the mother caused the child to sustain any injury when she hit Lisa with a belt, not to mention there was no evidence a female committed the alleged acts of sexual abuse. The court also expressed concern defense counsel's questions would necessitate the mother asserting her Fifth Amendment [FN 2] rights in the presence of the jury. During her summation, defense counsel argued there was insufficient proof defendant committed the alleged offense, andemphasized the inconsistencies among the child's reports of the incident rendered her claim of sexual assault untrustworthy.

[FN 2] U.S. Const. amend. V.

State v. Hinton, No. A-5529-14T4, 2017 WL 3974410, at *1-2 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 11, 2017).

[A] jury acquitted defendant Talbert D. Hinton of first-degree aggravated sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(a)(1), but convicted him of second-degree sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b), and endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a). In the aggregate, he was sentenced to an eighteen-year extended term of imprisonment, subject to an eighty-five percent period of parole ineligibility.

Hinton, 2017 WL 3974410, at *1. Petitioner filed a direct appeal to the Appellate Division raising the following claims:

POINT I—THE TRIAL JUDGE IMPROPERLY PERMITTED THE FRESH-COMPLAINT WITNESS TO TESTIFY AS TO THE DETAILS OF THE ALLEGED ASSAULT, PROVIDED THE JURY WITH AN UNNECESSARY AND MISLEADING INSTRUCTION ON THE TENDER-YEARS HEARSAY EXCEPTION, AND PERMITTED THE STATE TO IMPROPERLY BOLSTER [THE CHILD'S] CREDIBILITY BY ALLOWING IT TO PRESENT NEEDLESSLY CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE OF [THE CHILD'S] ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT. THE COMBINATION OF THESE ERRORS DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL.

A. The Judge Failed To Limit [The Teacher Assistant] Fresh-Complaint Testimony To General Information About [the Child's] Complaint To Her.

B. The Judge Improperly Issued A Jury Instruction On Tender-Years Testimony That Was Likely To Have Misled And Confused The Jury.

C. In Addition To The Victim's Testimony, The Judge Permitted Three Hearsay Statements Under The Tender-Years Hearsay Exception, One Hearsay Statement Under The Fresh-Complaint Doctrine, And Testimony About The Reported Incident From The Treating Doctor, Resulting In Cumulative Evidence That Improperly Bolstered The Victim's Testimony and Prejudiced Defendant.

POINT II—THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED DEFENDANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRESENT A COMPLETE DEFENSE BY PROHIBITING COUNSEL FROM ASKING THE VICTIM'S MOTHER ABOUT VIOLENCE IN THE HOME, WHICH SERVED AS AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION FOR THE VICTIM'S PURPORTED BEHAVIORAL CHANGES AFTER THE INCIDENT.

POINT III—THIS CASE SHOULD BE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING BECAUSE THE SENTENCING COURT IMPROPERLY WEIGHED THE AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING FACTORS, RESULTING IN AN EXCESSIVE SENTENCE.

Hinton, 2017 WL 3974410, at *2-3. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of conviction on direct appeal. See id. at *6. The New Jersey Supreme Court denied certification on Petitioner's direct appeal. See State v. Hinton, 180 A.3d 700 (N.J. 2018). The United States Supreme Court denied Petitioner's request for a writ of certiorari. See Hinton v. New Jersey, 139 S. Ct. 1348 (2019).

In October, 2018, Petitioner filed this federal habeas petition. (See ECF 1). Petitioner raises the following claims in his habeas petition:

1. The trial court violated Petitioner's constitutional rights by preventing counsel from cross-examining the victim's mother about violence in the home which would have served as an alternative explanation for the victim's change in behavior ("Claim I").

2. The trial court improperly: (1) allowed a fresh-complaint witness to testify on the details of the assault; (2) provided the jury with an unnecessary and misleading tender years instruction; and (3) permitted unnecessary cumulative evidence ("Claim II").

3. The sentencing court improperly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors which led to an excessive sentence ("Claim III").

Respondent filed a...