Parker v. Ercole
666 F.3d 830
2d Cir.2012Background
- Parker was convicted in New York state court of second-degree murder on a twin indictment (intentional murder and depraved-indifference murder).
- The jury acquitted Parker of intentional murder and found him guilty of depraved-indifference murder based on evidence that a single rifle shot from inside a residence across the street endangered several people.
- Parker’s defense and the ADA agreed the murder was at issue; the ADA suggested depraved-indifference as an alternative if the jury could not infer intent.
- Parker moved to set aside the verdict on grounds the depraved-indifference count was improperly submitted; the trial court found sufficient evidence for depraved-indifference.
- Appellate Division held Parker’s sufficiency claim was unpreserved but reviewed the weight-of-the-evidence claim, concluding the evidence supported depraved-indifference rather than intentional killing.
- New York Court of Appeals affirmed, and Parker petitioned for habeas corpus in the district court, which denied relief; the Second Circuit reviews de novo and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence to support depraved-indifference murder? | Parker | Parker | Yes; evidence supported depraved-indifference. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to preserve sufficiency claim? | Parker’s ineffective assistance claim survives for preservation. | Parker’s claim unpreserved; no prejudice shown. | No; no reasonable probability of different outcome. |
| Did Appellate Division’s review on weight-of-evidence subsume sufficiency review? | Parker's sufficiency merits were improperly withheld. | Appellate review on weight-of-evidence encompassed sufficiency. | Appellate review sufficiently addressed the sufficiency issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence: rational finder could convict)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance; prejudice needed)
- Bierenbaum v. Graham, 607 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2010) (unpreserved claims reviewed on appeal may bar ineffectiveness challenge)
- Rivera v. Cuomo, 664 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2011) (cannot find lack of evidence where state courts defer to jury found depraved indifference)
- Rhagi v. Artuz, 309 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2002) (preservation requirements and procedural bars in habeas review)
- Jiménez v. Walker, 458 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2006) (assessing state-law claims when state decision rests on federal grounds)