Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Jerry St. John v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director

544 F.2d 894

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1977-01-03
Topic: general

How later courts describe this case

breach of contemporaneous objection rule might be excused if, in the particular case, defendant had moved for limiting instruction

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Jerry St. John v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 13 opinions

ST. JOHN v. ESTELLE,544 F.2d 894(5th Cir. 1977)

JERRY ST. JOHN, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, v. W. J. ESTELLE, JR., DIRECTOR,

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

No. 76-1178.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 3, 1977.

Page 895

Marianne Wesson Cantrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Richel Rivers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellant.

Ray J. McQuary, Staff Counsel for Inmates, Darrington Unit, Rosharon, Tex., for petitioner-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before COLEMAN, AINSWORTH and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] The district court granted petitioner's writ of habeas corpus, holding that the admission of evidence of prior convictions solely to show general criminal disposition violated due process of law. In light of the Supreme Court's recent decision inEstelle v. Williams,425 U.S. 501,96 S.Ct. 1691,48 L.Ed.2d 126(1976), we reverse.

[2] On cross-examination of petitioner's mother, the prosecution elicited evidence that petitioner had only recently returned from a stay in the state penitentiary. Defense counsel objected that such information was hearsay, and his objection was overruled. Four questions later, defense counsel belatedly objected to the admission of this evidence of extraneous offenses. At no time did counsel ask that the evidence be stricken or that a limiting instruction be given. The state court affirmed the conviction because of counsel's failure to make a contemporaneous and specific objection to the penitentiary reference.

[3] Counsel's failure to object at the time such evidence was admitted is precisely the type of "inexcusable procedural default" discussed inEstelle v. Williams.

[T]here are two situations in which a conviction should be left standing despite the claimed infringement of a constitutional right. The first situation arises when it can be shown that the substantive right in question was consensually relinquished. The other situation ariseswhen adefendant has made an "inexcusable proceduraldefault" in failing to object at a time when asubstantive right could have been protected.

[4]96 S.Ct. at 1697(Powell, J., concurring) (emphasis added). A timely objection could have prevented the introduction of this evidence; a motion to strike or to give a limiting instruction could have cured some of the prejudicial effect. In light ofEstelle v. Williams,counsel's failure to object to the infringement of a trial-type right bars the client from later raising this substantive right in a collateral proceeding.

[5] Texas' contemporaneous objection rule furthers a valid state interest in that it allows the correction of trial-type errors at the time rather than requiring a new trial when counsel fails to bring errors to the state's attention until it is too late. The grant of habeas relief to this petitioner must be REVERSED.Page 896