Slade v. Baca
3:19-cv-00641-MMD-CLB
| D. Nev. | Sep 29, 2021Background:
- In January 1983, Edward Slade was tried and convicted of first-degree murder for the 1982 killing of Karen Daniels; the jury was instructed using the Kazalyn-style instruction on willfulness/deliberation/premeditation and sentenced to life without parole.
- Slade’s conviction became final in 1985; he did not file a federal habeas petition within AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations (which began in 1996 for final convictions).
- Slade filed a state post-conviction petition in 2017 (denied as untimely and barred by laches), then filed a federal §2254 petition in October 2019; respondents moved to dismiss as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1).
- Slade invoked the actual-innocence gateway (McQuiggin/Schlup) based on instructional error (Riley v. McDaniel): arguing that if the jury had received the Scott/Byford-style definitions separating premeditation and deliberation, he might only have been guilty of second-degree murder.
- Trial evidence: eyewitnesses saw Slade with the gun and acting calm/minimizing after the shooting; medical examiner found a contact-like wound behind the left ear and smoke residue consistent with close-range firing; Slade fled and exhibited calm behavior at a convenience store.
- The district court found Slade did kill Daniels but that the circumstantial and forensic evidence supported deliberation such that he could not meet the Schlup standard for actual innocence; the court also held Byford is not retroactive on collateral review.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / AEDPA statute of limitations and actual-innocence gateway | Slade argues actual innocence (instructional error) excuses untimeliness under McQuiggin/Schlup | Respondents assert petition is untimely and no gateway showing of actual innocence exists | Denied: petition dismissed as untimely; Slade fails Schlup gateway because evidence supports deliberation |
| Sufficiency of evidence to show only second-degree murder (Riley/Kazalyn error) | If jury had Scott/Byford definitions, a reasonable juror could find second-degree murder only | State points to forensic and circumstantial evidence showing close-range, deliberate killing | Held for state: evidence supports first-degree murder; no reasonable juror would have had reasonable doubt |
| Retroactivity of Byford (whether change in Nevada law applies on collateral review) | Slade contends Byford is a substantive rule requiring retroactive application (citing Montgomery/Welch) | Respondents argue Byford is a nonconstitutional state-law rule and not retroactive under Teague framework | Held for state: Byford not retroactive on federal collateral review; Montgomery/Welch do not compel retroactivity here |
| Certificate of Appealability (COA) | Slade seeks COA to appeal denial and actual-innocence ruling | Respondents oppose COA on retroactivity issue | COA granted on (1) whether instructional error could render Slade actually innocent of first-degree murder but guilty of second-degree, and (2) whether Slade is actually innocent; COA denied as to Byford retroactivity |
Key Cases Cited
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (actual innocence can excuse AEDPA statute-of-limitations bar)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (standard for actual-innocence gateway to overcome procedural defaults/time bars)
- Riley v. McDaniel, 736 F.3d 719 (9th Cir.) (holding Kazalyn instruction violated due process where Nevada law treated elements separately)
- Byford v. State, 994 P.2d 700 (Nev.) (Nevada Supreme Court required delineation/definition of deliberation for first-degree murder)
- Kazalyn v. State, 825 P.2d 578 (Nev.) (approved Kazalyn-style instruction on premeditation/premeditation/deliberation)
- Powell v. State, 832 P.2d 921 (Nev.) (treatment of first-degree murder elements as a single phrase meaning intent to kill)
- Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S. Ct. 1547 (rule-type and retroactivity framework for new constitutional rules on collateral review)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (retroactivity principles for substantive constitutional rules)
- Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (retroactivity analysis for new rules narrowing criminal statutes)