Myre v. State of Iowa
| Decision Date | 21 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2962,94-2962 |
| Citation | 53 F.3d 199 |
| Parties | Alfred E. MYRE, Appellant, v. STATE OF IOWA, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Michael R. Stowers, Des Moines, IA, argued, for appellant.
Thomas D. McGrane, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued, for appellee.
Before MCMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, JOHN R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
Alfred E. Myre appeals from an order of the district court 1 dismissing his petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) for failure to exhaust state remedies. He argues that he raised the constitutional issue concerning the burden of proof instruction in state court. Thus, he claims that he has met the exhaustion requirement. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
Myre was convicted of second degree murder after a jury trial in an Iowa state court. On appeal from his conviction, Myre argued that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt. Myre's brief filed with the Iowa Court of Appeals argued that he had requested an instruction defining in considerable detail the meaning of "reasonable doubt." The trial court had refused Myre's instruction and given its own. Myre argued that the court's instruction was inadequate in that it did not set out a standard for measuring the reasonableness of the jurors' doubts. Myre cited state cases discussing the specificity with which reasonable doubt must be defined for a jury. He did not assert that the instruction given had lowered the burden of proof. Myre admits that his state appeal "did not strictly reference the constitution or strictly utilize constitutional analysis." The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed. It addressed Myre's argument as a question of state law, holding that the instruction satisfied standards set out in Iowa cases. State v. Myre, No. 2-472/91-1391, slip op. at 5-6, 507 N.W.2d 419 (Iowa Ct.App. Feb. 2, 1993), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 558, 126 L.Ed.2d 459 (1993).
Myre then filed this habeas petition in which he raised four issues: a confrontation clause claim, a prosecutorial misconduct claim, the challenge to the reasonable doubt instruction, and a fourth claim which he later dismissed, admitting he had not exhausted his state remedies. The district court granted his motion to dismiss that claim. The magistrate judge 2 ruled that Myre had exhausted his state remedies as to the confrontation clause and prosecutorial misconduct claims, but not as to the claim challenging the reasonable doubt instruction. Since Myre had made an objection to the reasonable doubt instruction in state court, he argued to the district court that any challenge to the reasonable doubt instruction is "implicitly constitutional" and therefore that a petitioner should not be required to comply with the rule in Kelly v. Trickey, 844 F.2d 557, 558 (8th Cir.1988). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and found that Myre had not exhausted his state remedies as to the reasonable doubt instruction. Because Myre did not dismiss the unexhausted claim within the time granted him, the district court dismissed the whole petition on the basis of Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1205, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982).
On appeal, Myre argues that by raising any objection to the definition of "reasonable doubt," he alerted the state court to his federal constitutional claim that the standard of proof had been lowered beneath that required in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). First, Myre urges this Court to modify our test for determining when a habeas petitioner has "fairly presented" his federal constitutional claim to the state courts, citing more liberal standards from other circuits. Our own standard is stated quite clearly in Kelly v. Trickey, where we said that a petitioner must "refer to 'a specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roberts v. Bowersox
... ... This matter is before the Court on the petition of Missouri state prisoner Michael S. Roberts, for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March ... Iowa Dept. of Corrections Services, 164 F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir.1999), citing Delaware v. Van ... 2527, 138 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1997); McCall v. Benson, 114 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir.1997); Myre v ... Page 910 ... Iowa, 53 F.3d 199, 200 (8th Cir.1995). Here, the Court finds that ... ...
-
Al–rifahe v. Mayorkas
...contends requires a separate exemption. The Court will not consider matters first raised in a reply brief. See Myre v. State of Iowa, 53 F.3d 199, 201 (8th Cir.1995); D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(b)(3). Moreover, this fact would not change the Court's analysis, given the indefinite hold on Al–Rifahe's......
-
McDonald v. Bowersox
...federal constitutional issue...." Kelly v. Trickey, 844 F.2d 557, 558 (8th Cir.1988) (internal quotations omitted); see Myre v. Iowa, 53 F.3d 199, 200 (8th Cir.1995). A petitioner who presents a state law claim in state court will avoid procedural default with respect to a federal claim if ......
-
Hoskins v. Fayram
...case, or a state case raising a pertinent federal constitutional issue in a claim before the state courts.'" Myre v. Iowa, 53 F.3d 199, 200 (8th Cir. 1995) (quoting Kelly v. Trickey, 844 F.2d 557, 558 (8th Cir. 1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In seeking habeas relief, "'state pri......