Mark Rogers v. E. McDaniel
793 F.3d 1036
9th Cir.2015Background
- Rogers (Nevada prisoner) convicted in 1981 of three counts of first-degree murder with related larceny and attempted murder; death sentence imposed after penalty phase.
- Penalty-phase aggravators included prior violent felony and depravity of mind/mutilation; Nevada Supreme Court affirmed convictions and sentencing.
- Godfrey v. Georgia (1980) held vague death-penalty aggravator instruction unconstitutional absent limiting construction; Nevada law later reviewed this issue.
- Rogers pursued multiple state post-conviction petitions and federal habeas petitions; district court granted relief on death sentence due to the vague aggravator.
- On appeal, the district court’s ruling and posture included competency-stay issues; the court found Rogers competent for proceedings and denied a stay.
- Court ultimately affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the depravity of mind jury instruction unconstitutional under Godfrey? | Rogers argues instruction was vague. | Nevada contends instruction adequate under state law. | Yes; instruction unconstitutional under Godfrey and not harmless. |
| Was the jury’s consideration of the vague aggravator harmless? | Harmless error cannot be established; the error affected the verdict. | State claimed harmless under Chapman/undercutting evidence. | No; error not harmless; substantial and injurious effect. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by denying a competency stay? | Rogers incapable; stay warranted. | District court properly found Rogers competent; no stay needed. | No abuse; competency stay denied. |
| Should the Court expand the COA and remand on Martinez and related claims? | Certain claims must be reconsidered under Martinez and subsequent decisions. | Await remand guidance; otherwise maintain rulings. | COA expanded; remand for Martinez-based and related claims. |
| How should AEDPA and new authority affect remand and tolling analyses? | New precedents require reevaluation of default/ tolling arguments. | Procedural rulings pending; await new precedents. | COA broadened; remand to address Martinez, Sossa, Dickens, and tolling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420 (1980) (unconstitutionally vague death-penalty aggravator instruction absent limiting construction)
- Valerio v. Crawford, 306 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2002) (approach to curing vague aggravators; en banc discussion)
- Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2011) (application of Godfrey v. Georgia to Nevada instruction)
- Robins v. State, 798 P.2d 558 (Nev. 1990) (narrowed construction of depravity of mind instructional standard)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless-error standard in federal habeas review)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmlessness standard for federal habeas corpus)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (progenitor for expanding COA via Martinez-related claims)
- Sossa v. Diaz, 729 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2014) (equitable tolling considerations in post-conviction petitions)
- Dickens v. Ryan, 740 F.3d 1302 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc; consideration of Martinez and related standards)