Puckett v. Allbaugh, 16-6349

Background

Puckett was convicted in Oklahoma of multiple counts of child sexual abuse (forcible oral sodomy and attempted forcible oral sodomy) based largely on videoed testimony of the victim, J.N., who died before trial. He was sentenced to 30 years.
J.N. had earlier lived with Puckett and his mother; prior DHS investigations (2006–2008) recorded no sexual-abuse allegations by J.N.; in Jan 2009 J.N. reported abuse and later testified at a preliminary hearing; that video testimony was played at trial.
Puckett sought to admit an undated three-page letter allegedly written by J.N. indicating he had turned his mother and Puckett into DHS because he wanted to live with his father; the trial court excluded the letter for lack of authentication/hearsay.
On direct appeal the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) held the letter had limited relevance because evidence in the record suggested it was written before J.N. ever alleged sexual abuse, and alternatively concluded any error in excluding it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman.
Puckett filed a §2254 habeas petition arguing the exclusion violated his right to present a defense and that the OCCA unreasonably applied Chapman; the federal district court denied relief and this court granted a COA limited to whether the OCCA reasonably applied Chapman in its harmless-error analysis.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed, applying AEDPA deference and concluding the OCCA’s timing/relevance findings and harmlessness determination were not objectively unreasonable under the Chapman/Brecht framework.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of J.N.’s letter violated Puckett’s right to present a defense	Excluding the letter prevented impeachment/recantation evidence and was not harmless; OCCA unreasonably found the letter irrelevant or waived	Letter was unauthenticated/hearsay, likely written before any sexual-allegation, and of limited relevance; any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Court held OCCA reasonably applied Chapman; exclusion was either irrelevant to sexual allegations or harmless under AEDPA deferential review
Whether OCCA unreasonably made factual findings about when the letter was written	OCCA lacked authority/jury should determine timing; Puckett claimed he learned of the letter only at trial	OCCA relied on bench-conference statements (unchallenged by defense counsel) and record evidence to time the letter before sexual allegations	Court found OCCA’s timing determination reasonable and based on record admissions; not an unreasonable factual finding
Applicable harmless-error standard on federal habeas review	Puckett argued Chapman error required reversal	State relied on AEDPA deference and Brecht subsuming Chapman under habeas review	Court applied AEDPA/Brecht/Chapman framework and affirmed that state harmlessness finding was not objectively unreasonable
Whether excluded letter could have produced actual prejudice given other evidence	Letter would meaningfully impeach J.N. and sway jurors	Significant impeachment/credibility evidence (Dr. McNall‑Knapp’s testimony, J.N.’s statements about wanting to live with his father, prior DHS interviews) made letter cumulative	Court held other probative evidence supported defense theory; reasonable jurists could agree OCCA’s harmlessness conclusion stands

Key Cases Cited

Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error standard on direct review requires belief error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (habeas standard requires showing error had substantial and injurious effect)
Davis v. Ayala, 574 U.S. 2 (AEDPA review of state-court harmlessness determinations; Chapman analysis reviewed with deference)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (federal habeas review limited to record before state court)
Hanson v. Sherrod, 797 F.3d 810 (10th Cir. standard for unreasonable application of federal law under AEDPA)