Langston v. Smith
630 F.3d 310
2d Cir.2011Background
- Langston was convicted in New York in 2003 of felony assault and second-degree criminal possession of a weapon; the jury was instructed to convict based on the assault occurring in the course of and in furtherance of weapon possession.
- During the botched gun-sale-turned-robbery, Cherry, Brownlee, and Wyman ambushed undercover officers, injuring Detective Marquez and others; weapons were recovered from the scene and linked to the assault.
- Langston argued on direct appeal that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove the ‘in furtherance of’ element, and the state appellate court rejected his claims.
- Langston filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition; the district court granted relief on the sufficiency issue, while denying relief on the weapon-possession and concert-of-action claims.
- The Second Circuit reviews de novo the district court’s grant of habeas relief and assesses whether the state court’s Jackson v. Virginia application was unreasonable.
- The court ultimately reverses the state court on the insufficiency of the evidence for felony assault and AFFIRMS the district court’s grant of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proves the ‘in furtherance of’ element | Langston argues the assault was in furtherance of weapon possession | Smith contends the evidence supports the ‘in furtherance of’ nexus | Insufficient; cannot prove in furtherance beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether the state court unreasonably applied Jackson v. Virginia | Langston contends the appellate ruling was an unreasonable application | Smith argues the state court reasonably applied the standard | Unreasonable application; relief warranted |
| Whether the jury instruction properly limited theories to weapon possession | Langston asserts instruction erred by limiting theory to possession | Smith contends instruction was proper or harmless | Instruction error contributed to insufficiency; prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (establishes sufficiency review for reasonable doubt)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Swansbrough, 802 N.Y.S.2d 777 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005) (illustrates ‘in furtherance of’ analysis in context of assault and imprisonment)
- People v. Joyner, 308 N.Y.S.2d 840 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1970) (requires act to be in attempted execution of the unlawful end)
- People v. Cahill, 809 N.E.2d 561 (N.Y. 2003) (discusses ‘in the attempted execution of’ language in 'in furtherance of')
- People v. Slaughter, N.Y.2d 577 (N.Y. 1991) (illustrates relevance of whether actions actually furthered the underlying crime)
- United States v. MacPherson, 424 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence in the Second Circuit)
- United States v. D'Amato, 39 F.3d 1249 (2d Cir. 1994) (limits on inferences permissible under Jackson v. Virginia)