Ward v. Allbaugh
19-5060
| 10th Cir. | Oct 25, 2019Background
- Reginald Ward shot and killed the victim; wounds numbered between seven and eleven to front and back. Two eyewitnesses testified with differing accounts about whether the victim was armed or threatening.
- Victim’s sister testified the victim was unarmed, turned to walk away, was shot in the back, then shot again after falling. A friend (driver) testified the victim threatened Ward and kept his hand in his pocket; he also corroborated that Ward shot the fallen victim multiple times but gave inconsistent statements to police.
- At trial the jury received instructions on first‑degree murder, manslaughter by heat of passion, and self‑defense; the jury convicted Ward of first‑degree murder. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) affirmed; postconviction relief was denied.
- Ward filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 raising: (1) insufficiency of the evidence, (2) failure to give certain jury instructions (including a Stand‑Your‑Ground instruction and a lesser‑included manslaughter theory), (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request those instructions, and (4) trial‑court errors in responding to juror questions/deliberative access to video. The district court denied relief; Ward sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit.
- The Tenth Circuit denied a COA, applying AEDPA deference to the state court’s merits rulings and Strickland standards for ineffective‑assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict of 1st‑degree murder | Ward: evidence only supports self‑defense or at most manslaughter (heat of passion or imperfect self‑defense) | State: eyewitness testimony plus physical evidence supports finding of first‑degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt | COA denied; state court’s conclusion not objectively unreasonable under AEDPA; sufficiency upheld |
| Failure to give a Stand‑Your‑Ground instruction | Ward: Oklahoma’s Stand‑Your‑Ground statute required a separate instruction distinct from self‑defense | State: claim was not presented to the district court (procedural default) | COA denied; claim not preserved/raised in district court, so Tenth Circuit declined to consider it |
| Failure to instruct on manslaughter by resisting criminal attempt (lesser‑included) | Ward: jury should have been instructed on manslaughter by resisting criminal attempt | State: in non‑capital federal habeas, failure to give lesser‑included instruction does not entitle relief; evidence did not support the lesser offense | COA denied; federal precedent bars habeas relief for failure to give lesser instruction in non‑capital case and OCCA reasonably found evidence insufficient for the lesser offense |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to request the above instructions | Ward: trial counsel deficient for not requesting Stand‑Your‑Ground and manslaughter resisting instructions | State: Strickland prejudice and/or performance prongs not met; Stand‑Your‑Ground claim unraised below | COA denied; Stand‑Your‑Ground IAC claim not preserved; OCCA reasonably found no Strickland prejudice regarding manslaughter instruction |
| Trial court’s responses during deliberations (no video access; referral to instructions on sentencing question) | Ward: denying jurors access to videotaped interviews and simply referring jurors to instructions violated due process | State: courts have discretion to restrict evidence access in deliberations; referring jurors to instructions is common and proper | COA denied; no Supreme Court precedent requires unfettered video access and state court action was not contrary to clearly established federal law |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (COA standard; issue must be debatable among reasonable jurists)
- Coleman v. Johnson, 566 U.S. 650 (AEDPA review of sufficiency of the evidence requires objective unreasonableness)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (§2254(d) review limited to the state‑court record)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient performance and prejudice standards for ineffective assistance)
- Virginia v. LeBlanc, 137 S. Ct. 1726 (state‑court rulings must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong)
- Gipson v. Jordan, 376 F.3d 1193 (explaining AEDPA "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" framework in the Tenth Circuit)
- Lujan v. Tansy, 2 F.3d 1031 (non‑capital habeas relief not available for failure to give lesser‑included instruction)