Helen Spry v. D. K. Johnson

Filing 32

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge George H. Wu. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the petition and dismissing this action with prejudice. (See Order for further details) Report and Recommendation (Issued) 30 (vm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

Case No. CV 16-423 GW (MRW)

HELEN SPRY,
Petitioner,

14
15

v.

16

D. K. JOHNSON, Warden,

17

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

Respondent.

18
19
20

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court reviewed the petition, the records on

21

file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

22

Petitioner did not file any written objections to the report. The Court accepts the

23

findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

24

***

25

The Court notes limited circumstances (not mentioned in the original

26

Report) in which a conviction that rests on uncorroborated accomplice testimony

27

may implicate due process concerns under the federal constitution. As a general

28

1

rule, the Constitution does not require corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony.

2

However, a federal constitutional issue may arise if a prisoner can show an

3

arbitrary deprivation of a “state law entitlement” such as a procedural rule

4

addressing specific evidence like accomplice corroboration. Laboa v. Calderon,

5

224 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir. 2000); Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346 (1980).

6

Also, a criminal conviction cannot rely solely on an accomplice’s uncorroborated

7

statement that is “incredible or insubstantial on its face.” Laboa, 224 F.3d at 979

8

(quoting United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir. 1993)

9

(analyzing sufficiency of evidence of conviction)).

10

Petitioner did not advance any type of Laboa – Hicks claim on direct appeal

11

or in this Court. Nor could she. The state appellate court reasonably – and non-

12

arbitrarily – determined that the provisions of the accomplice corroboration rule

13

simply did not apply to her co-defendants’ jailhouse statements to each other.

14

Those statements were not “given under suspect circumstances” and were

15

“declarations against penal interest.” (Docket # 21-17 at 18.) As a matter of state

16

law, they were “considered sufficiently reliable to require no corroboration” or a

17

derivative instruction to the jury to view the statements with caution. (Id. (citing

18

People v. Brown, 31 Cal. 4th 518, 555 (2003)).) The state court’s analysis was not

19

an arbitrary application of state law that unfairly deprived Petitioner of any right.

20

Laboa, 224 F.3d at 979.

21

Further, Petitioner cannot demonstrate that any error was anything other than

22

harmless here. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993) (evidentiary or

23

instructional error cannot lead to habeas relief “unless it results in ‘actual

24

prejudice’” that had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining

25

the jury’s verdict”).

26

As noted in the appellate decision, the accomplices’ jailhouse statements

27

established that Petitioner was the getaway driver and a knowledgeable participant

28

in the gang’s mission. Those statements were amply corroborated by other
2

1

evidence at trial. Petitioner was arrested behind the wheel of the car shortly after

2

the killing. She had been in the company of other gang members in the period

3

before the killing. Petitioner “could not have overlooked” the fact that her

4

passengers possessed a long rifle before the shooting and threw it out a window

5

shortly after. Moreover, Petitioner was identified as a possible contributor of DNA

6

recovered from the murder weapon. (Docket # 21-17 at 5, 17.)

7

Because this evidence corroborated the co-defendants’ statements about

8

Petitioner, any error in failing to advise the jury about the corroboration

9

requirement was surely harmless. Brecht, 507 U.S. 637. That conclusion

10

necessarily means that the accomplice statements were not “incredible or

11

insubstantial.” Laboa, 224 F.3d at 979. The Court finds no basis for habeas relief

12

on the corroboration instruction claim.
***

13
14
15

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the petition and
dismissing this action with prejudice.

16
17
18
19

DATE: February 14, 2017

20

___________________________________
HON. GEORGE H. WU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22

Presented by:

23
24
25
26

____________________________________
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
3