White v. Coplan

• Decision Date: 11 July 2003
• Docket Number: No. CIV. 02-280^IM.,CIV. 02-280^IM.
• Citation: 270 F.Supp.2d 178
• Parties: Delvin WHITE v. Jane COPLAN, Warden New Hampshire State Prison For Men
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire

270 F.Supp.2d 178

Delvin WHITE v.Jane COPLAN, WardenNew Hampshire State Prison For Men

No. CIV. 02-280^IM.

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire.

July 11, 2003.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

David M. Rothstein, Franklin Pierce Law CenterAppellant Defender Program, Concord, NH, for Petitioner.

Nicholas P. Cort, Attorney General's Office, Concord, NH, for Respondent.

ORDER

MUIRHEAD, United States Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner Delvin White is an inmate at the New Hampshire State Prison for Men("NHSP").In 1997, White was found guilty on charges of committing one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault and two counts of felonious sexual assault following a jury trial in the Superior Court, Hillsborough County.White's convictions were affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire("NHSC") in December 2000.In the instant action, White seeks a federal writ of habeas corpus claiming that his right to confront witnesses, secured by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, was violated in the New Hampshire state courts because the trial court prohibited all cross examination of the complaining witnesses concerning their prior allegations of sexual assault against other persons even though White was able to establish the falsity of those prior allegations to a "reasonable probability."White contends that the trial court's complete denial of any cross-examination concerning t complaining witnesses' prior allegations of sexual assault was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.This is White's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court.

The Respondent in this action is Jane Coplan, NHSP Warden.Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on White's habeas petition under Rule 11 of the Rules Governing§ 2254Cases and Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Respondent contends that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.White filed an objection.The Court requested that the parties submit supplemental memoranda after the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit("First Circuit") issued its en bancopinion in Ellsworth v. Warden, N.H. State Prison,333 F.3d 1(1st Cir.2003), which addresses issues similar to those raised in the instant case.

After carefully reviewing the parties' submissions, and the relevant authorities, the Court finds that White has established that his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights were violated by the decisions of the New Hampshire state courts.The Court finds that the New Hampshire state courts imposed an unreasonable restriction on White's right to cross-examine the complaining witnesses under the facts of this particular case.It is the opinion of this Court that White's convictions were not the result of a fair trial.Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, Respondent's motion for summary judgment is denied and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted.

Background

I.Factual Background¹

On March 2, 1996, White spent the afternoon visiting a friend and his girlfriend at their apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire.The friend had two daughters, ages twelve and eight, and the friend's girlfriend had two sons, all of whom were together in the apartment that day.After spending the afternoon playing cribbage, listening to the radio, and drinking beer with his friend, White was invited to have dinner at the friend's house.It was later agreed that White would spend the night.

At White's criminal trial, the younger daughter testified that while she sat with White on a day bed watching television, White rubbed her breasts, put his hand down her pants, and "stuck his finger in."When the daughter told her father what happened, the father attacked White.During this confrontation, the older daughter came out of a bedroom crying hysterically.She later told a doctor that earlier that same day White had touched her breasts, her vaginal area, and inserted his finger into her "private."As the confrontation between the father and the defendant continued, the father's girlfriend took all of the children to a neighbor's apartment and called the police.After an investigation, the police told the girlfriend to take the alleged victims to the hospital for a physical examination, which she did.

White was charged in the Superior Court with sexual assault.The complaining witnesses, then aged twelve and eight, testified that White had sexually assaulted them.White moved in limine to introduce evidence, through cross-examination, intended to show that both complaining witnesses had previously made false accusations of sexual assault against other persons.White sought to introduce evidence that the two complaining witnesses had previously accused a neighbor of sexual assault.White further sought to introduce evidence that the twelve-year-old had falsely accused two other persons of sexual assault.After a hearing on the motion in limine, the trial court denied White's motion, finding that White had failed to show that the prior allegations were "demonstrably false."The trial court prohibited all cross examination concerning the prior allegations of sexual assault.White was convicted of aggravated felonious sexual assault against the older child and one count of felonious sexual assault against each child.

II.Procedural History

White appealed his convictions to the NHSC.In his appeal, White argued that trial court erred in excluding evidence of the complaining witnesses' prior allegations of sexual assault against other persons.White challenged the trial court's ruling under state and federal law.The NHSC held that the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding White's proffered evidence, and that the court had applied the correct standard under New Hampshire evidentiary law when it required White to show that the prior accusations of sexual assault were "demonstrably false," before they could be inquired into on cross-examination.Id. at 547-51, 765 A.2d at 159-61.The court ruled that White had not shown that the prior allegations were "demonstrable false" because he had not demonstrated "clearly and convincingly" to the trial court that the accusations were false.State v. White,145 N.H. 544, 553-54, 765 A.2d 156, 163.The standard employed by the NHSC was first announced in White's case.The court's ruling was based on Rule 608(b) of the New Hampshire Rules of Evidence.²SeeWhite,145 N.H. at 547, 765 A.2d at 158.The court stated that it did not undertake a separate federal analysis "[b]ecause federal law does not provide any additional protection in this area."White,145 N.H. at 553-54, 765 A.2d 156, citingState v. Ellsworth,142 N.H. 710, 720, 709 A.2d 768(1998)andClinebell v. Commonwealth,235 Va. 319, 368 S.E.2d 263(1988).White filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, but the petition was denied.White v. New Hampshire,533 U.S. 932, 145 N.H. 544, 121 S.Ct. 2557, 150 L.Ed.2d 722(2001).

On September 11, 2001, White was sentenced in the Superior Court to serve three consecutive sentences of 10 to 30 years in the NHSP.The Superior Court's Sentence Review Division affirmed that sentence on April 23, 2002.White will not be eligible for parole until he has served at least 30 years in prison.

Standard of Review

Summary judgment may be granted in a habeas proceeding when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c);Monroe v. Coplan,No. Civ. 02-069-B, 2002 WL 31689343(D.N.H.Nov. 22, 2002);Marro v. Cunningham,No. 97-652-JD, 2000 WL 1466114(D.N.H.Jan. 21, 2000).A genuine issue is one "that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because [it] ... may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party."Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202(1986).A material fact is one that affects the outcome of the suit.Seeid. at 248.

White's habeas petition was filed after the passage of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), Pub.L. No. 104-132,110 Stat. 1214(1996).Under the AEDPA, the federal courts may not grant a state prisoner a writ of habeas corpus with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim:

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(West 2002).With respect to factual issues, the AEDPA mandates that a state court's findings "shall be presumed to be correct" and the petitioner bears the burden of disproving factual findings by "clear and convincing evidence."28 U.S.C. § 2254(e);DiBenedetto v. Hall,272 F.3d 1, 6(1st Cir.2001).This presumption of correctness in favor of the state court's factual findings "overrides the ordinary rule that, in summary judgment proceedings, all disputed facts must be construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party."Smith v. Cockrell,311 F.3d 661, 668(5th Cir.2002).

A threshold issue that must be determined is whether White's federal constitutional claim was "adjudicated on the merits" in the state court proceedings within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).The NHSC found that the trial court applied the proper evidentiary standard applicable to prior false allegations under Rule 608(b) of the New Hampshire Rules of...