Stewart v. Coalter

passenger out side window and shot SELYA, STAHL, Before BOUDIN and twice, killing the cat it. The car then drove Judges. Circuit away passengers laughing. day, At on about 12 noon the same BOUDIN, Judge. Circuit car, sitting same which was Gary parked Maple in Cambridge. Stewart was convicted Superior one-way Massachusetts Court of second de- Avenue is a street that runs gree commencing Cambridge murder. After the Judicial south from Street conviction, upheld just Cambridge City Hospital. Stewart filed a east of the corpus petition parked lengths habeas and the district court The several car south ultimately writ, granted holding with Cambridge of the intersection Street. earlier, a.m., inadequate evidence at the trial was to Fifteen 11:45 state minutes about a reasonable to convict. told former he That his wife that would very judges along ten walking Cambridge able before us have disa- west Street greed sharply Square, Cambridge is a which is on over mea- from Inman difficulty hospital. sure of this case. east of Street several blocks amply if he and shared an intent aided the crime is inference At about noon—this degree said to murder. For first times three supported shot —Good judge, required the intent included handgun a .38 caliber to kill premeditation and an intent both Ma- just of the intersection with Street west injury; degree serious for second heart, pierced shots ple; one of the unnecessary. jury premeditation was head, he killed. Imme- his and was another returned a for three hours and deliberated afterward, Good, carrying hand- the diately degree of murder. After- verdict second Maple gun, diagonally ran down wards, first the trial indicated that a the of the parked on east side Pontiac the degree might have been murder conviction the car south then drove street. Stewart expected. Avenue, accelerating approxi- Maple down per appeal, argued A blocks that the evi- mately 45 miles hour.1 few On Stewart jury inadequate dence for a reasonable later, Harvard and was intersection of the of that had known in advance find he Streets, stop sign ran and Stewart Dana The Mas- intent to commit murder. light crashed another flashing red and Court, by Appeals a two-to-one sachusetts car. vote, entry judg- the of agreed and ordered Pontiac, from the told Stew- Good exited ment in Stewart’s favor. Commonwealth here,” art, getting quickly and “I’m out 569, Stewart, Mass.App.Ct. 571 N.E.2d 43 got car and away. Stewart out the walked (1991). review, Supreme Ju- On further the police against the door. When the leaned verdict, all guilty the dicial Court reinstated came, policemen, one the said to justices agreeing five that evidence trying I ordinary accident. was “It’s an “that to allow conclude and on Dana Harvard Street continue cross in to kill and planned advance along left of me came this car when plan this and intend- kn[ew] of [Stewart] To another officer Stewart and struck me.” committing ed aid Good the murder.” big only This deal? said: “What’s Commonwealth only only one. I’m the accident. I’m (1991). 582 N.E.2d 518 n. 3 police found a the car.” In Pontiac the evidence, all From the Commonwealth’s bag paper on the floor in front of the brown jury reasonably could have inferred passenger containing rounds seat several live driving and had been [Stewart] types similar to that of .38 ammunition of up Cambridge looking for and down Street to kill used him; ... and so Good could shoot heart offered at This is the deliberately parked [Stewart] eye trial. There was one witness Street, and street near side bar; eye witness to the event at another around comer from where cat; involving who saw the incident pass, speedy to facilitate a soon to order eye running to witness who saw Good third escape after the murder. [and] away driving after the the car and Stewart [Stewart’s] intent to assist was further shots; looking and a fourth who saw Good directly ran shown evidence that Good rapidly the car window as car drove out automobile after shoot- [Stewart’s] Avenue. Several officers down ing, that without hesitation conver- passengers sation, from the other away and several immediately pulled [Stewart] high crash to events at the crash sped up testified the street at a rate of and subsequently speed; was no evidence of motive. [Stewart] scene. There relatively escape lying po- to the little evidence at covered Good’s Stewart offered testify. lice. trial and did not 582 N.E.2d at 518. judge charged un-

The trial present began der law Stewart could be con- then habeas Massachusetts “joint theory district court. proceeding in federal of murder on a venture” victed (establishing Maple). § Mass.Gen.L. ch. See per speed like of 30 miles hour for streets limit There, ly argued § 2254. he that a con- and without deferring U.S.C. otherwise state violation had because courts. stitutional occurred the record evidence adduced the We are not sure that this standard does state trial no rational trier fact could have thinking reflect the current of the beyond a proof found reasonable doubt. Court. On the the proper issue of constitu- Virginia, Jackson v. standard, tional Jackson was a flve-to-three 2781, 2791-92, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 decision; every member the Jackson ma- The district court reviewed the state jority Court; gone from the the con- record, took the same “view” of scene at curring joined by trio—Justice Stevens Chief Cambridge Street the trial Burger Justice Rehnquist Justice —ar- taken, heard considered the briefs and oral gued for a standard that asked whether 6, 1994, argument. On June the district there was some evidence to support the dis- granted court the writ and ordered Stewart’s puted finding. Further, opinions since both period release after a brief the in Jackson held that the evidence was ade- stay. Commonwealth seek convict, quate to the choice between the two calibrations of the standard did not matter in contrary The district court said that — that case. Supreme the the inference drawn Judicial appear At it may startling first blush that was insufficient that Court —there evidence judges federal effectively should substitute parked Maple Stewart had been judges themselves deciding state knowledge soon judgment acquittal whether a is warranted pass nearby or speedy escape to facilitate a ain state criminal case for lack of after killed him. The district court also evidence. No suggests federal said testimony that the did not show the judges ordinary should review state court instantly moved Good’s return or rulings on procedure evidence or under a de Good did not converse at novo standard. And if one looks to core due most, briefly. least At said the district process principles, California, see Rochin v. judge, might have been convicted as 165, 172, 205, 209-10, 72 S.Ct. 96 accessory fact, to murder after the (1952), L.Ed. 183 a conviction on no evidence lesser crime with which he was never average conscience; could well shock the but charged and could not now be because the nothing find shocking some about a statute of had run. limitations The Com- simple disagreement between federal appealed stayed monwealth then and we the judges state how far stretch an infer- judgment pending review. ence. sequels the Neither of two to Jackson is

II. —West, illuminating. Wright U.S. -, -, parties 2482,120 (1992), The district court and the do L.Ed.2d 225 greatly applicable legal differ as to the majority involved a fractured Court — Jackson, opinion; Collins, standard. Under question the and Herrera v. U.S. “whether, -, the (1993), habeas must answer is 122 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 203 viewing light the majority opinion evidence the most the Chief Rehn Justice quist capsulized favorable to rational solely in Jackson order to trier of distinguish general fact could have found suffi plane, it. On a more cient narrowing the essential elements the Court’s habeas the last dec beyond a widely acknowledged. crime reasonable doubt.” U.S. ade is At the same time, 99 S.Ct. at 2789. The Commonwealth formally the Court has not retreated its only position stresses that habeas can con prior proceedings, in habeas rationality they sider the of the verdict and is not federal courts —when reach the mer guilt make or her normally his own evaluation of independent make decisions on its— Fenton, innocence. But the Commonwealth does not constitutional issues. Miller dispute 445, 450-51, Stewart’s claim that the habeas court U.S. apply quoted is to independent- standard L.Ed.2d 405 sidesteps the doubt because the Supreme conviction how not certain areWe witness, has and that majori- factfinder credited matter. The will resolve Court in all the most pole of the matter represents the end in Jackson ty’s statement Only defendants; in circumstantial-evi- extreme cases. most favorable this we face head-on possibility that dence cases like one do lies the spectrum of the end disturbing guilty verdicts rest truth that might adopt the “some evidence” the Court probabilities judgments about and those or— on concurrence Jackson formulation usually judgments intuitive rather than thing under different are the same pretty much of limited deference to state scientific. label —a notion Possibly, even the tribunals. facts of this case—those that The essential a case know it would handle yet how does unquestionably entitled to precise is so close that ours that like simple: prior associa- find —are rather result. could dictate the formulation Stewart; day tion of Good and earlier evidence” stan- adopting a “some While knowledge that Good was armed case, greatly simplify this dard would vicious; parking the car on a side court that the more agree with the district wheel; with Stewart murder street stringent language of Jackson should literal Perry of Good around the corner Cam- ambig- inquiry. nothing There is our control Street; bridge hasty return to the standard, however about the Jackson uous shots; high-speed getaway the and after the case; it may apply to in a close it hard it be car; subsequent crash of the and Stew- the jus- position majority of a of was the stated (unsuccessful- tending art’s lies the tices; over- the standard has never been and ly) capture. from shield Good tricky a matter for lower federal ruled. It is is also no doubt about what infer- There anticipate In Supreme the Court. courts ence of fact the draw order especially because the Jack- this instance — joint under a ven- convict Stewart murder innocence, directly concerned with rule is son theory. Although ture Massachusetts’ label 323, at 99 S.Ct. at 2791—we see uncommon, theory is es- is its justified we would be in dilut- not think that aiding abetting concept. sentially an and ing Jackson. clearly escape after the Stewart aided Good’s question The difficult factual is murder. III. whether Stewart also knew that Good was Accordingly, proceed consid we or, a planning to murder as would commit record the trial whether on the made er law, also be under Massachusetts “any rational trier of fact” could have court planning grievous knew that Good was to do guilty beyond of murder found Stewart bodily harm to his victim. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 319, 443 reasonable doubt. U.S. Moore, 117, (1990); 556 N.E.2d 392 Mass. make inquiry 2789. This is an we 99 S.Ct. at Grey, Commonwealth v. any special a cold record without de novo on N.E.2d 171 court, highest deference to either state’s 318-25, Jackson, 443 U.S. see (including judges it nine Why is 2788-92, court, see federal district majority panel) think that the stated on this Dubois, (1st Cir.), Scarpa v. 38 F.3d 9 n. 5 compelling permit facts clear and inference — U.S. -, denied, 940, 130 cert. guilt (including and four others (1994) beyond persuasive L.Ed.2d 885 dissenting colleague) plain think it our (conflicting) interpretations power their acquittal been ordered? Af- an should have record. all, no the fact that one overheard Stew- ter planning a murder is not dis- cases are on art and Good many In criminal close facts, agreements frequently positive; are inferred is because the closeness concealed States Mor- eye from circumstances. United witness testifies to defendant’s an Cir.1993). (1st an, course, witnesses, F.2d The guilt. Eye can make viewpoints mistakes; two ex- or the difference between the newspaper reader but think, judges, lies reading pressed the thirteen appellate transcript after probabilities that to the primarily murdering Perry in the different car after assigns 'possible implicitly spurred side unwitting driving each Stewart happened. of what quickly away. alternative versions thought Judicial Court it The why anyone wanting newspa- But would reasonably clear that Good and must per wait at the wheel down the block aon looking have been Good where, side street so far him; proceeding could murder saw goes, newspaper vending is machine Street; parked east on and then visiting known to be located? If Good were quick on a side the car street friend, why sick would there not have been Perry. getaway after Good accosted The evidence at trial that he had such friend contrast, court, by thought be district this to hospital fact that could almost cer- —a conjecture said that were there tainly proved without Stewart’s testimo- plausible explanations that not did involve ny? robbery, As for the not would nor- knowledge by advance that Good mally hospital think gift shop that a kill meant to or assault Good lived inviting target given make limited — away Avenue; from few blocks proceeds likely presence of hospital conjectured district court that Stewart guards compared any neighborhood con- — awaiting been from Good’s return his venience store. when encountered on the house point explanations prof- way back. impossible fered Stewart’s brief are agree We with the district court there likely. none them seems at all And very little to show that and Stewart two innocent ones —or like them —are Perry; searching for but that is were easily not squared also with the high-speed necessary component leading in a scenario getaway by or cover-up lies told guilt. Stewart’s It would be if it is, Stewart after the record as crash. The beyond be could inferred reasonable doubt said, district unclear as to whether searching that either Good Stewart were pulled instantly space Stewart out of the or they happened for or that to see maneuver; had to but the evidence does on cruising while Street and fast, away very show that Stewart drove proposed Good then to murder Ei- point. later accident reinforces the Simi- possibility is ther consistent with the evi- larly, police especially Stewart’s lies to the — dence, prior knowledge by and both involve spontaneous any- denial there was possibilities Stewart of Good’s intent. Both one else the ear —do not that he was plausible. quite are also privy to the crime advance but reinforce contrast, By implausible we think that it is impression. suppose visiting purport- or course, eye where witness Of there no ing visit on his home located near can imagine explanations one innocent so, If were as the Avenue. this dis- anything here, example, almost — thought possible, quite trict court there nois Good, buy newspaper, dis- having left to apparent why reason Stewart’s car would closed the murder as he reentered the parked Maple of in instead front protect his instantly and Stewart decided to brings home. This us Stewart’s (by high fleeing speed, friend and then which, only conjecture brief in its about other lying police) although grave risk to explanations, asserts: reasonably this far- himself. But could seem provides no clue whether [T]he jury; gap-closing fetched to a and each new Mr. Good left Mr. car with the assumption e.g., supposed conversation — buying newspaper, innocent intention of story. in the strain to the ear —adds new visiting hospital, or sick friend even, taking into account Mr. Good’s bad beyond — Guilt a reasonable doubt can robbing hospital gift shop. premised conjecture. character — pure not be But Assuming any conjecture be purposes, these it is at least consistent with the evidence conjecture, possible rushed less and less a and moves have back comes erased, but uncertainties that cannot be proof, inno- some gradually as alternative toward jury less weak as to render the or made it was also not so are discarded explanations cent unlikely jury might all Here, nothing at A rational well likely. there is verdict irrational. oath; violating that Good and Stewart its hypothesis acquitted without about the stalking but, or chanced fa- drawing reasonable inferences in were either all him. jury would kill that Good him and decided vor of the a rational could likely has at all that is explanation No other also convict. “Beyond a suggested to reasonable us. been have considered the case thus far We of ev- require the exclusion doubt” does by suggested par- terms of scenarios enough all ery it is hypothesis; other courts that have ties and four be excluded. United “reasonable” doubts Although them. oth- the Stewart case before (1st Oreto, Cir. 37 F.3d States joint cases have er Massachusetts Whiting, F.3d 1994); States parties, each is been cited to us Cir.1994). (1st 1296, 1303-04 distinguishable; and none would relieve us objective point, stan- At this Jackson’s own duty to make our own under Jackson makes against the defendant. It dard turns independent assessment as what reason- we or the district whether difference this case. able could infer on the facts of acquit jurors have voted to as possibility But think one additional think that we ourselves Stewart whether patent that it calls out for comment even so ques- reasonable doubt. The there is some though thought neither side has it useful “any” ra- is whether posed tion Jackson in this draw our attention direction. presented on the evidence tional could Good, the association of participation like- knowing think Stewart’s car, prior shooting, strategically parked And ly all doubts. to exclude reasonable high reasonably quick departure and quite views people can have different rational escape, speed and the lies cumu- quick getaway the likelihood that a about suggest latively know-

implies prior planning or that otherwise ing participant in a with Good criminal protect police to he to the innocent would could, given A venture. rational companion. murderous likely explanations, find the absence no ex- problem is that scientific data The joint likely as alternative so to be venture (and not might it probabilities on these ists words, beyond reasonable doubt. In other existed). it Each and be if admissible jury, obliged although we think that the not juror brings a bundle to courthouse (as so, reject any to do was to notion entitled assumptions about how unarticulated court) by posited the district that Stewart respective and likeli- world works about accessory was most shown be an at of events. hoods of different concatenations joint just was ven- the fact. But what we, or does not mean that the district That ture? court, escape can or the state tribunals jury to limit- second-guessing the task of only theory argued by verdicts, necessary apply ed to direct extent only and one covered Jackson, appeal. or consider such issues jury, instructions to the was that the venture suggest experience in human But variations Perry griev- or to him was one murder do range expect a considerable that one should bodily think ous harm. We that another likely about what is reasonable estimates possibility suggests as with itself consistent unlikely. part left the car as evidence: Good plan a to rob some- have the same confidence Good We do not Street, Perry in one on whether or the Massachusetts either district court might along, come assigning particular or whoever Supreme Judicial Court robbery Perry gone of a probabilities All that can was the victim in this case. we a having awry. This does not involve say, advantage of both sets scenario with the us, bodily do against intent to commit murder or that the case shared views before is overwhelming and involved harm. Stewart was STAHL, say may enough Judge, it dissenting:

It Circuit likely substantially less than a scenario respect, I agree With dissent. I murder, only planned if because of the district court that the evidence was not ade- wounds inflicted on Two the three find, quate beyond for a a reasonable and one to shots-—one to head doubt, that joint Stewart was involved kill; suggest intent to and this is heart — venture to commit murder. See Stewart especially so of the former since the coroner Coalter, (D.Mass.1994). F.Supp. Un- back said the shot entered of the majority, like I am “loathe to stack infer- course, possible is still skull. Of it uphold ence inference in order to Perry robbery attempt resisted and was jury’s Valerio, verdict.” United States v. killed, then but the shot from behind makes Cir.1995) 58, (1st F.3d (citing Ingram v. likely. this less We also have no reason States, (en think route to meet his former 1314, 1320, (1959)). 3 L.Ed.2d 1503 lunch) armed, and there wife prosecution evidence—-which the would For the return verdict of second- good if had reason to offer it existed —that degree it had to find Good property wallet or was found in the planned harm, to kill or grievous bodily ear. that Stewart plan, was aware of Good’s joint Ironically, if the were carry- that Stewart intended to aid robbery, it appears commit that Stewart ing it out. Commonwealth v. guilty still have been of murder under 514, (1991). Mass. 582 N.E.2d 518 n. 3 I felony murder followed in rule Massachu- cannot see how a rational could have See, many e.g., and in setts other states. found, beyond doubt, reasonable that Stewart Claudio, Commonwealth such knowledge most, had and intent. At I course, 634 N.E.2d 906-07 Of think that Stewart have been convicted sustaining that would not be a basis for accessory fact, as an to murder after the appeal direct Stewart’s conviction on since he crime with charged. which he was never charged felony never murder. But part it doubt whether would be of the There is no evidence that Stewart and corpus prisoner office of habeas release entered venture to kill seeking whose “defense” the writ was that Perry. record, When one reads the it is not only he committed murder but “reasonably clear” that Stewart and Good theory properly presented jury. looking had been so that Good fact, kill In it

could him. is not even clear that Stewart knew It IV. all.2 is undis- puted that neither Stewart nor Good could Judges presided who over criminal have known of two calls to his former say juries trials are wont to wife, during finally the second which she usually correct, defensible, reach or at least agreed to him meet at a in Inman restaurant presented result the evidence to them. Square, Cambridge, or that would be is no That reason to diminish further safe- proceeding west on It is Street. verdict, guards, against such as the directed significant say stretch to that Stewart tragic person may that an innocent risk parked his car a side street to prison. be sent to It reason hesitate quick getaway fortuitously should Good ac- long concluding jury’s hard before that a Perry, especially cost since lived near- judgment is irrational. by. Nor there evidence that judgment of the district court is re- parked the car where he did it because was versed. place convenient to await return after killing they Perry, just happened Dissent whom follows. first-degree 2. There is also evidence Stewart and murder of See Common- Good entered kill someone wealth v. n. N.E.2d 1. fact, at random. In Good was convicted of the accepts if one true Even to see.3 testimony concerning lies

disputed accident, the intersection privy that he was lies do

those best, advance; they support

the crime accessory argument. postulated by the scenario

In to find order conjecture and find majority, has grant I exists.4 would where none

the writ. REP., INC., Creative

CMM CABLE d/b/a Inc., Plaintiff, Management, Media

Appellant, PROPERTIES, COAST

OCEAN WPOR-FM, al.,

INC., et d/b/a Defendants, Appellees.

No. 94-2172. Appeals, Court of States

First Circuit. Feb. 1995.

Heard March

Decided doubt," returning yond Virginia, jury, a reasonable Jackson 3. verdict I note 2781, 2791-92, U.S. 61 necessarily second-degree found that (1979) (emphasis original), in L.Ed.2d premeditate. did not more favor of Jackson concurrers' limited inquiry there evidence to into whether was some disagree majority's speculation I also disputed finding, support the see id. the current would abandon Court (Stevens concurring). Majority S.Ct. 2792-93 requiring us to determine the Jackson rule recently, I note that at 613. context "whether, light viewing the evidence in the errors, made habe- constitutional less, more, rational most favorable to the generous. O'Neal as review - -, McAninch, found evidence sufficient trier of fact could have U.S. be- L.Ed.2d elements of crime essential

Case Details

Case Name: Stewart v. Coalter

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Published: Feb 28, 1995

Citation: 48 F.3d 610

Docket Number: 94-1626

Court Abbreviation: 1st Cir.