85 F.4th 750
5th Cir.2023Background
- Terry L. Terry was convicted in 2010 of three counts of juvenile molestation: two counts involving his daughters (1985–1994; 1990–1994) and Count III alleging molestation of his grandniece S.B. in 2008.
- The prosecution introduced forensic interviews from the Gingerbread House, live testimony (including S.B.), and expert medical testimony (Dr. Ann Springer) showing findings consistent with sexual abuse.
- S.B., age four at the forensic interview and six at trial, used the nickname "Terry Terry Terry" inconsistently to identify the abuser; she sometimes referred to her biological father and at other times to the defendant (her great-uncle) or "daddy."
- Dr. Springer testified to physical findings (redness, chronic yeast infection, hymenal tissue separation) consistent with sexual abuse; other witnesses offered conflicting accounts and suggested possible influence on S.B.’s trial testimony.
- Terry was convicted on all counts and sentenced (concurrent terms, including a 50-year term on Count III); state courts affirmed on direct appeal and denied post-conviction relief.
- Terry filed a federal § 2254 petition raising (relevant here) insufficiency claims as to Count III: (1) misidentification, (2) acts not "lewd or lascivious," and (3) venue (whether acts occurred in Louisiana). The district court denied relief; Fifth Circuit AFFIRMED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Terry) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity of perp (Count III) | S.B.'s identification was inconsistent; "Terry Terry Terry" could refer to others (e.g., her biological father), so no rational jury could identify Terry. | Contextual facts (living arrangements, S.B.'s statements at time of abuse, corroborating witness testimony, Dr. Springer's exam) support a reasonable identification of Terry. | State court not objectively unreasonable; evidence sufficient for a rational juror to find Terry was the perpetrator. |
| Lewd or lascivious element | Alleged acts were only painless squeezing/pinching and thus not "lewd or lascivious" under Louisiana law. | Squeezing/pinching a child's genital area at night, in bed, repeatedly is obscene/indecent; pain is not required. | Acts could be found "lewd and lascivious"; state court decision reasonable. |
| Venue (Louisiana vs. Mississippi) | Trial record insufficient to prove molestation occurred in Caddo Parish, Louisiana. | Place of crime is a venue issue (not an element); S.B.'s statements and timing permit a jury inference acts occurred in Caddo Parish. | Issue was unpreserved as a pretrial venue motion; even on merits, jury could reasonably find acts occurred in Louisiana. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA requires state-court decisions not be "objectively unreasonable")
- Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1 (emphasizes deference to jury verdicts on sufficiency grounds)
- Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37 (describes "twice-deferential" standard for Jackson claims on habeas review)
- Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650 (reinforces that federal courts may not overturn state sufficiency rulings simply due to disagreement)
- Ramirez v. Dretke, 398 F.3d 691 (federal habeas relief on sufficiency grounds appropriate only if no rational trier could find guilt)
- Fields v. Thaler, 588 F.3d 270 (AEDPA standard governs review of state-court adjudications on the merits)
- Miller v. Thaler, 714 F.3d 897 (discusses scope of showing required to meet § 2254(d) standard)