Adam Toghill v. Harold Clarke
877 F.3d 547
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2011 petitioner Adam Toghill (age 32) exchanged emails with an undercover deputy posing as a 13‑year‑old and solicited oral sex; he was convicted under Va. Code § 18.2‑374.3(C)(3) for using a communications system to solicit a child under 15 to perform acts including those covered by Va. Code § 18.2‑361 (anti‑sodomy statute).
- Toghill appealed, arguing his conviction violated substantive due process under Lawrence v. Texas because it was predicated on § 18.2‑361. Virginia courts rejected the claim; the Supreme Court of Virginia issued a narrowing construction of § 18.2‑361 to exclude private, consensual adult sodomy but preserve applications involving minors, forcible or public acts, prostitution, etc.
- The Fourth Circuit previously (MacDonald/Moose) held Virginia’s anti‑sodomy statute facially invalid under Lawrence and Ayotte, granting habeas relief to a defendant convicted for solicitation of sodomy of a 17‑year‑old, because the federal court would not judicially narrow the statute.
- On federal habeas review under AEDPA, the Fourth Circuit panel reviewed whether the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision rejecting Toghill’s claim was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Lawrence as clearly established federal law.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed denial of habeas relief, holding that the state supreme court’s authoritative narrowing construction saved the statute’s constitutional applications (including prosecutions protecting minors) and that § 18.2‑374.3(C)(3) is a child‑protection, standalone offense not invalidated by Lawrence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Toghill) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Toghill’s conviction under Va. Code § 18.2‑374.3(C)(3) violates substantive due process as informed by Lawrence v. Texas | Lawrence invalidates sodomy statutes; Moose found § 18.2‑361 facially invalid, so any conviction referencing § 18.2‑361 (including § 18.2‑374.3(C)(3)) must be set aside | Lawrence does not protect minors; state may criminalize adult solicitation of minors; § 18.2‑374.3(C)(3) targets child‑directed sexual solicitation and is a valid child‑protection statute | Affirmed: state supreme court’s narrowing construction limits § 18.2‑361 to exclude protected adult private conduct; § 18.2‑374.3(C)(3) remains valid and Toghill’s conviction stands |
| Whether federal habeas can disregard a state supreme court’s narrowing construction and follow Moose | Toghill: Moose is persuasive and controlling in this circuit; federal court should apply Moose to invalidate convictions predicated on § 18.2‑361 | Commonwealth: Federal habeas must defer to state court’s authoritative construction of state law; federal courts may not rewrite state statutes under Ayotte | Held: Federal courts are bound by state‑court authoritative constructions; Moose did not have benefit of Virginia Supreme Court’s subsequent narrowing; AEDPA requires deference |
| Whether § 18.2‑374.3(C)(3) is merely derivative of § 18.2‑361 such that § 18.2‑361’s infirmity invalidates it | Toghill: § 18.2‑374.3(C)(3) references § 18.2‑361, so any infirmity in § 18.2‑361 contaminates § 18.2‑374.3(C)(3) convictions | Commonwealth: § 18.2‑374.3(C)(3) is a standalone, minor‑specific offense enacted to protect children; incorporation by reference does not erase its child‑protection purpose | Held: § 18.2‑374.3(C)(3) is a valid, child‑protective statute; referencing § 18.2‑361 does not compel invalidation |
| Whether AEDPA permits relief where state court applied Lawrence differently from Fourth Circuit Moose | Toghill: Moose establishes clearly established law in this circuit favoring relief | Commonwealth: AEDPA requires federal courts to determine whether the state decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent (Lawrence); fairminded disagreement is possible | Held: State court’s ruling was not an unreasonable application of Lawrence; AEDPA precludes relief here |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (Due Process protects consenting adult private sexual conduct; explicitly excludes minors and coercion)
- Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng., 546 U.S. 320 (2006) (remedy for unconstitutional statute should, where practicable, be limited to unconstitutional applications rather than facial invalidation)
- MacDonald v. Moose, 710 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2013) (Fourth Circuit held Virginia anti‑sodomy statute facially invalid under Lawrence and declined to narrow it under Ayotte)
- Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (pre‑Lawrence precedent upholding sodomy statute overruled by Lawrence)
- Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (2005) (federal courts are bound by state courts’ authoritative interpretations of state law)
- Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990) (state courts may narrow statutes to avoid constitutional problems; federal courts should respect such constructions)