663 F.3d 514
1st Cir.2011Background
- Butler was convicted in 2002 by jury under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 22(a) for aggravated rape and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the conviction; Superior Court rulings were challenged on direct and postconviction review; SJC denied direct review.
- The victim was subjected to a lengthy rape with threats and a weapon; injuries included neck abrasion, rib tenderness, and vaginal tearing; DNA identified Butler as the attacker.
- The aggravated rape statute uses the phrase “resulting in serious bodily injury” but contains no definition of that term.
- Butler challenged the statute as applied, arguing it was void for vagueness; the challenge was presented late to the MAC but addressed on the merits; the district court and the First Circuit upheld the state court’s decision under AEDPA.
- The First Circuit affirmed denial of habeas relief, applying deferential review to state-court rulings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the term serious bodily injury is unconstitutionally vague as applied. | Butler argues lack of notice due to vagueness. | MAC concluded the term is not unconstitutionally vague and provides adequate notice. | Not unconstitutionally vague; MAC reasonable under AEDPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1964) (fair warning standard; notice of prohibited conduct)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (U.S. 1983) (two components of notice; clear to offender and law enforcement)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (U.S. 2008) (conviction must provide fair notice or avoid standardless enforcement)
- Lanier v. United States, 520 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1997) (three manifestations of the vagueness doctrine; not all apply to state convictions)
- Batchelder v. United States, 442 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1979) (vagueness may raise constitutional questions about sentencing provisions)
- Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (U.S. 1966) (historical basis for vagueness scrutiny in criminal law)
- Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48 (U.S. 1975) (retroactivity/notice concerns in vagueness analysis)
- Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1973) (reliance on state court interpretations for habeas review)
- James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (U.S. 2007) (statutory vagueness not always invalid when related to enhanced penalties)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (AEDPA deference standard for unreasonable rulings)
- Dixon v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 26 (2011) (clear error in applying AEDPA standard; fairminded disagreement)