Mendoza v. Leapley
| Decision Date | 24 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-1248,93-1248 |
| Citation | 5 F.3d 341 |
| Parties | Gilbert MENDOZA, Appellant, v. Walter LEAPLEY, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary; Mark W. Barnett, Attorney General, State of South Dakota, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Larry F. Hosmer, Yankton, SD, argued, for appellant.
William J. Nevin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, SD, argued, for appellees.
Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Gilbert Mendoza, a South Dakota inmate, appeals the district court's 1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition. We affirm.
In April 1990, a South Dakota grand jury charged Mendoza with two counts of first-degree rape involving the five year-old daughter of his live-in girlfriend. Prior to trial, Mendoza moved twice for the appointment of Dr. William Arbes, a psychologist, as an expert to testify that Mendoza's personality was inconsistent with that of a child rapist. The court denied both motions, concluding that Dr. Arbes's testimony would be inadmissible under South Dakota law. In November 1990, the jury convicted Mendoza of one count of first-degree rape. The court sentenced Mendoza to ten years imprisonment. On direct appeal, Mendoza raised only one issue--that the trial court denied him due process by denying his motion for the appointment of an expert psychologist and by not allowing the expert to be called as a witness. The South Dakota Supreme Court summarily affirmed, concluding that the appeal was meritless because the issue was "clearly controlled by settled South Dakota law or federal law" and "there clearly was not an abuse of discretion." SeeState v. Mendoza, 474 N.W.2d 905 (S.D.1991) (table). The district court considered the same issue in this section 2254 petition, and rejected it.
Mendoza now argues that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint Dr. Arbes and that the trial judge did not follow proper procedures, thus violating his due process rights. Mendoza also argues that the trial court erred by concluding that Dr. Arbes's testimony was inadmissible. The admissibility of evidence, however, is a matter of state law and generally does not give rise to constitutional error subject to redress in a federal habeas corpus case. Harrison v. Dahm, 880 F.2d 999, 1001 (8th Cir.1989). An evidentiary question is reviewable "only when the alleged error infringes a specific constitutional right or is so grossly or conspicuously prejudicial that it fatally infected the trial and denied petitioner fundamental fairness." Ford v. Armontrout, 916 F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1594, 113 L.Ed.2d 657 (1991). The habeas petitioner must establish an error which demonstrates a violation of due process by a burden much greater than that required on direct appeal and even greater than the showing of plain error. SeeHicks v. Scurr, 671 F.2d 255, 259 (8th Cir.1982), cert....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schneider v. Delo
...process by a burden much greater than that required on direct appeal and even greater than the showing of plain error." Mendoza v. Leapley, 5 F.3d 341, 342 (8th Cir.1993). Petitioner has failed to meet his burden. He accuses the investigating police officials of "sloppy work" but fails to i......
-
Jones v. Class
...is even greater than the showing of plain error on direct appeal. Loop, 1996 SD 107 at p 23, 554 N.W.2d at 193 (citing Mendoza v. Leapley, 5 F.3d 341, 342 (8thCir.1993); Hicks v. Scurr, 671 F.2d 255, 259 (8thCir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 968, 103 S.Ct. 295, 74 L.Ed.2d 278 ¶8 Over object......
-
Digirolamo v. Newjersey
...influence the jury. Notwithstanding this, a habeas petitioner's burden of proving a due process violation is high. See Mendoza v. Leapley, 5 F.3d 341, 342 (8th Cir. 1993) ("The habeas petitioner must establish an error which demonstrates a violation of due process by a burden much greater t......
-
McGuinness v. Al Luebbers
...is "much greater than that required on direct appeal and even greater than the showing of plain error." Mendoza v. Leapley, 5 F.3d 341, 342 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Here, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of establishing a due process violation in the trial court's admission of ......