Morgan v. Dickhaut, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8633

Background

Morgan challenged a Massachusetts first-degree murder conviction on AEDPA grounds after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) upheld his conviction on sufficiency grounds; no physical evidence tied Morgan to Rowe’s murder, but circumstantial evidence showed motive, opportunity, and consciousness of guilt; multiple witnesses testified to Morgan’s statements and actions suggesting he planned or attempted to kill Rowe; Morgan argued the SJC applied the wrong standard or, if correct, that the evidence was insufficient to convict under Jackson v. Virginia; the district court denied relief but issued a certificate on the sufficiency issue under a principal liability theory; Morgan proceeds on direct appeal and habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Morgan was last seen with Rowe and Johnson in a green sedan; Rowe’s body was found with a gunshot wound days later; Morgan’s statements and conduct (calling a witness, offering money for counsel, seeking a “clean” gun, threats against robbers) supported an inference of guilt; the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove Morgan fired the shot under a principal liability theory, though no weapon or fingerprints linked him directly to the crime; the jury convicted Morgan of deliberately premeditated murder in the first degree; the SJC analyzed sufficiency under the Latimore framework and did not depart from Jackson; the district court’s AEDPA-based questions are reviewed de novo for whether the state court’s decision was contrary to or unreasonably applied federal law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the SJC applied Jackson v. Virginia’s standard correctly.	Morgan argues SJC applied a non-Jackson standard or misapplied it.	Morgan I–Morgan II show SJC followed Latimore and used Jackson’s standard.	SJC applied Jackson correctly; no unreasonable application.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Morgan as the principal actor.	Evidence favored Johnson; Morgan asserts no genuine equal/inferior evidence.	There was ample circumstantial evidence pointing to Morgan and the jury resolved credibility.	Evidence sufficient; Morgan not entitled to relief.
Whether the AEDPA standard was met for an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.	District court erred in finding the state court’s decision reasonable.	Decision reasonably applied Jackson to the totality of the evidence.	District court’s ruling affirmed; no AEDPA relief.
Whether procedure on joint venture vs principal liability impacted the conviction.	If only joint venture supported conviction, then error if principal liability required.	Conviction supported under principal liability independent of joint venture issues.	Conviction sustained under Massachusetts law and Jackson standard.

Key Cases Cited

Mass. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 393 N.E.2d 370 (1979) (Mass. 1979) (adoption of Jackson-based sufficiency standard in Massachusetts)
Commonwealth v. Salemme, 481 N.E.2d 471 (Mass. 1985) (Mass. 1985) (insufficiency when theory leaves guilt in equipoise; consciousness of guilt evidence cannot prove guilt alone)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (requires review of whether any rational trier could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
O'Laughlin v. O'Brien, 568 F.3d 287 (1st Cir. 2009) (1st Cir. 2009) (deference and totality-of-the-evidence approach in AEDPA sufficiency review)
United States v. Flores-Rivera, 56 F.3d 319 (1st Cir. 1995) (1st Cir. 1995) (reaffirmed need to view evidence in light most favorable to the prosecution)
McCambridge v. Hall, 303 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2002) (1st Cir. 2002) (“some increment of incorrectness beyond error” standard under AEDPA)
Hurtado v. Tucker, 245 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2001) (1st Cir. 2001) (statutory standards and reasonableness guidance in habeas review)
Guerrero-Guerrero v. United States, 776 F.2d 1071 (1st Cir. 1985) (1st Cir. 1985) (jury’s interpretation of evidence within reasonable range)