St. John v. Estelle, 76-1178
| Decision Date | 03 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1178,76-1178 |
| Citation | 544 F.2d 894 |
| Parties | Jerry ST. JOHN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Marianne Wesson Cantrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Richel Rivers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellant.
Ray J. McQuary, Staff Counsel for Inmates, Darrington Unit, Rosharon, Tex., for petitioner-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before COLEMAN, AINSWORTH and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.
The district court granted petitioner's writ of habeas corpus, holding that the admission of evidence of prior convictions solely to show general criminal disposition violated due process of law. In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976), we reverse.
On cross-examination of petitioner's mother, the prosecution elicited evidence that petitioner had only recently returned from a stay in the state penitentiary. Defense counsel objected that such information was hearsay, and his objection was overruled. Four questions later, defense counsel belatedly objected to the admission of this evidence of extraneous offenses. At no time did counsel ask that the evidence be stricken or that a limiting instruction be given. The state court affirmed the conviction because of counsel's failure to make a contemporaneous and specific objection to the penitentiary reference.
Counsel's failure to object at the time such evidence was admitted is precisely the type of "inexcusable procedural default" discussed in Estelle v. Williams.
(T)here are two situations in which a conviction should be left standing despite the claimed infringement of a constitutional right. The first situation arises when it can be shown that the substantive right in question was consensually relinquished. The other situation arises when a defendant has made an "inexcusable procedural default" in failing to object at a time when a substantive right could have been protected.
96 S.Ct. at 1697 (Powell, J., concurring) (emphasis added). A timely objection could have prevented the introduction of this evidence; a motion to strike or to give a limiting instruction could have cured some of the prejudicial effect. In light of Estelle v. Williams, counsel's failure to object to the infringement of a trial-type right bars the client from later...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jurek v. Estelle
...it would have been a futile gesture. Rummel v. Estelle, 587 F.2d 651, 653-54 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). See also St. John v. Estelle, 544 F.2d 894, 895 (5th Cir.), Adopted en banc, 563 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1977) (breach of contemporaneous objection rule might be excused if, in the particular ......
-
Hogue v. Johnson
...held that it was followed with sufficient regularity for this purpose. In denying habeas relief on this basis in St. John v. Estelle, 544 F.2d 894 (5th Cir.1977), we observed that "Texas' contemporaneous objection rule furthers a valid state interest." Id. at 895. This opinion was adopted b......
-
Masterson v. Thaler
...rather than requiring a new trial when counsel fails to bring errors to the state's attention until it is too late." St. John v. Estelle, 544 F.2d 894, 895 (5th Cir. 1977). The Fifth Circuit "has consistently held that the Texas contemporaneous objection rule constitutes an adequate and ind......
-
Young v. Herring
...See, e.g., McKinney v. Estelle, supra (objection on proper grounds insufficient where not persisted in until ruling); St. John v. Estelle, 544 F.2d 894 (5th Cir.1977), en banc, 563 F.2d 168 (1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 914, 98 S.Ct. 2255, 56 L.Ed.2d 415 (1978) (objection on insufficient g......
-
Sex Discrimination
...F.2d at 1199, on the ground there was no authority to support such dicta, except for the EEOC Guidelines (29 C.F.R. §1604.3(b)); Stroud, 544 F.2d at 894. Practice Although Stroud has precedential value as a Fifth Circuit case, the factual prerequisites to the Stroud holding seem unlikely to......
-
Sex Discrimination
...at 1199, on the ground there was no authority to support such dicta, except for the EEOC Guidelines (29 C.F.R. §1604.3(b)); Stroud , 544 F.2d at 894. Practice Note Although Stroud has precedential value as a Fifth Circuit case, the factual prerequisites to the Stroud holding seem unlikely t......
-
Sex discrimination
...at 1199, on the ground there was no authority to support such dicta, except for the EEOC Guidelines (29 C.F.R. §1604.3(b)); Stroud , 544 F.2d at 894. PRACTICE NOTE Although Stroud has precedential value as a Fifth Circuit case, the factual prerequisites to the Stroud holding seem unlikely t......
-
Sex Discrimination
...at 1199, on the ground there was no authority to support such dicta, except for the EEOC Guidelines (29 C.F.R. §1604.3(b)); Stroud , 544 F.2d at 894. PRACTICE NOTE Although Stroud has precedential value as a Fifth Circuit case, the factual prerequisites to the Stroud holding seem unlikely t......