Duncan v. Henry
- Decided
- January 23, 1995
- Docket
- 94-941
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,630 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that habeas petitioner must raise due process claims and federal claims in state court — Brian Brinson v. George Baldwin (1997)
- holding that a claim of “miscarriage of justice” does not qualify as a federal constitutional claim” — Cole v. Metzger (2019)
- holding that to fairly present a federal claim to a state court for exhaustion purposes, petitioners must alert the state court “to the fact that the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States Constitution” — John Henry Casey v. Robert Moore (2004)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Per Curiam.
Respondent, a rector and dean of a church day school, was tried and convicted in state court of sexually molesting a 5-year-old student. At trial, respondent objected to testimony by the parent of another child who claimed to have been molested 20 years previously. His objection was based on Cal. Evid. Code Ann. §352 (West 1966). On direct appeal, he pursued his evidentiary objection and requested the appellate court to find that the error was a “miscarriage of justice” under the California Constitution. California ap [*365] plies this provision in determining whether or not an error was harmless. People v. Watson, 46 Cal. 2d 818, 299 P. 2d 243 (1956). The California Court of Appeal found the error harmless and affirmed respondent’s conviction. People v. Henry, No. CR23041 (2d Dist. 1990), App. D to Pet. for Cert. 6.
Respondent then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court, alleging that the evidentiary error amounted to a denial of due process under the United States Constitution. The District Court granted the petition and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Henry v. Estelle, 33 F. 3d 1037 (1994). The court held that respondent had exhausted his state remedies even though he had not claimed a violation of any federal constitutional right in the state proceedings:
Cite this
Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364 (1995)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.