Watson v. Nix
Decision Date | 09 February 1982 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 81-351-D. |
Parties | William Ray WATSON, Petitioner, v. Crispus NIX, Warden, Iowa State Penitentiary, and Attorney General of the State of Iowa, Respondents. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa |
Gary B. Garrison, Des Moines, Iowa, for petitioner.
Thomas D. McGrane, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa, for respondents.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 brought by an inmate of the Iowa State Penitentiary at Fort Madison, Iowa, where respondent Crispus Nix is the warden.1 Petitioner is serving a sentence of 20 years in prison imposed on February 18, 1975, by Iowa District Judge M.C. Herrick after petitioner was found guilty by a jury of assault with intent to commit rape in violation of Iowa Code § 698.4 (1973). The conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court. State v. Watson, 242 N.W.2d 702 (Iowa 1976).
The sole claim asserted by petitioner is that he was denied due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States on the ground that upon the record evidence adduced at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt, specifically proof of intent to commit rape, beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). This issue, of course, is submitted upon the record evidence adduced at the trial. The court also has before it the threshold question of whether petitioner exhausted his state remedies.
28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides in part:
Examination of the exhaustion issue requires a review of some United States Supreme Court and Iowa Supreme Court decisions as well as a review of petitioner's state court litigation.
In 1970 the United States Supreme Court held "that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." In re Winship, supra, 397 U.S. at 364, 90 S.Ct. at 1072.2
Petitioner's trial was conducted in January of 1975. Petitioner introduced no evidence. At the conclusion of the state's evidence petitioner's counsel moved for a directed verdict on the ground, inter alia, that "the State has not introduced evidence sufficient to generate a jury question or from which the jury can find beyond a reasonable doubt that if there was any such assault by defendant that the assault was with the intent to commit rape * * *." Petitioner's counsel did not cite the due process clause of the United States Constitution or In re Winship, supra, or any other case authority. The motion was denied.
On appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court petitioner again challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on the necessary element of intent to commit rape, but again his counsel did not cite the due process clause of the Constitution, In re Winship, supra, or any other due process case. The court held that the evidence was sufficient. State v. Watson, supra, 242 N.W.2d at 705.
Jackson v. Virginia, supra, 443 U.S. at 324, 99 S.Ct. at 2791 (footnote omitted). The Court stated that "Under the Winship decision, it is clear that a state prisoner who alleges that the evidence in support of his state conviction cannot be fairly characterized as sufficient to have led a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has stated a federal constitutional claim." Id. at 321, 99 S.Ct. at 2790.
On February 20, 1980, the Iowa Supreme Court decided State v. Robinson, 288 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa 1980), a sufficiency of the evidence case. The court reviewed its historical sufficiency of evidence standard as follows:
State v. Robinson, supra, 288 N.W.2d at 338.
After discussing and quoting Jackson v. Virginia, the court went on to state:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US ex rel. Ford v. Ahitow
...1031 (S.D.N.Y.1991); Blankenfeld v. Clarke, 753 F.Supp. 1498 (D.Neb. 1990); Tenner v. Wallace, 615 F.Supp. 40 (S.D.Ga.1985); Watson v. Nix, 551 F.Supp. 1 (S.D.Iowa) aff'd, 696 F.2d 1000 (8th Cir.1982); Bentley v. Cox, 508 F.Supp. 870 (E.D.Va.1981); Littles v. DeFrancis, 517 F.Supp. 1137 (M.......
-
State v. Casady
...abuse. We believe our analysis and decision here is not in conflict with the decision of the federal district court in Watson v. Nix, 551 F.Supp. 1 (S.D.Iowa 1982). There the court granted a writ of habeas corpus releasing a prisoner serving a sentence for assault with intent to commit rape......
-
Ward v. Lockhart
...of a constitutional right, it is this court's obligation, pursuant to section 2254, to provide habeas corpus relief. Id.; Watson v. Nix, 551 F.Supp. 1, 8-9 (S.D.Iowa), aff'd, 696 F.2d 1000 (8th With these principles in mind, we consider the evidence produced at trial in this case. It is und......
-
U.S. v. Hernandez, 01-3118.
...court explained, "conjecture is something less than an inference reasonably drawn from the evidence." (App.A-9) (citing Watson v. Nix, 551 F.Supp. 1, 12 (S.D.Iowa 1982), aff'd without opinion, 696 F.2d 1000 (8th Cir.1983)); see also United States v. Campbell, 702 F.2d 262, 267 (D.C.Cir.1983......