Ivan Bechtol v. John Prelesnik
568 F. App'x 441
6th Cir.2014Background
- Bechtol convicted in Kalkaska County (MI) of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit kidnapping, first-degree home invasion, and attempted kidnapping for the Moran homicide.
- Moran was abducted and murdered; body found in Torch River on Sept. 5, 2001; trial focused on Cron-Bechtol conspiracy and later plans to kill Moran.
- Bechtol argued his due process right to present an adequate defense was violated (Webb v. Texas) and that there was insufficient evidence for first-degree premeditated murder.
- Bechtol raised issues about witness Charles Lee and the non-testimony of Ryan Hittle; Hittle’s testimony was allegedly deterred by prosecutorial threats.
- The district court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and certified issues for appeal; Bechtol appealed claiming lack of opportunity to present witnesses and sufficiency of the evidence.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the Hittle claim procedurally defaulted and the evidence sufficient to sustain the conspiracy conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Bechtol denied due process by prosecutorial intimidation of a witness? | Bechtol says intimidation prevented Hittle from testifying. | State argues the Hittle claim was not properly preserved/exhausted. | Procedural default; no cause shown to excuse; no federal habeas relief on this claim. |
| Was the evidence sufficient to support conspiracy to commit first-degree murder? | Bechtol contends insufficiency of proof. | Evidence, including multiple witnesses and circumstantial proof, supports conspiracy. | Yes; substantial evidence showed Bechtol's involvement and agreement to abduct and kill Moran. |
| Did Bechtol properly exhaust and preserve the Hittle claim in state court? | Bechtol asserts fair presentation and exhaustion. | State asserts failure to present the exact Hittle claim and improper briefing. | Claim procedurally defaulted; not exhausted; no cause shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (1972) (due process limits on presenting witnesses)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (sufficiency of evidence standard on habeas review)
- Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446 (2000) (cause-and-prejudice requirement for procedural default)
- Williams v. Anderson, 460 F.3d 789 (2006) (exhaustion requirement for procedurally defaulted claims)
- Cone v. Bell, 243 F.3d 961 (2001) (procedural default when state rules foreclose review)
- People v. Justice (After Remand), 562 N.W.2d 652 (1997) (Michigan law on conspiracy and completion of offense)
- Brown v. Konteh, 567 F.3d 191 (2009) (AEDPA deferential review; standard for sufficiency on habeas)