Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; September 8, 2004; Federal Appellate Court
Latosha Armstead, a thirteen-year-old, was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide in Wisconsin after conspiring with her eighteen-year-old boyfriend, James Williams, to murder Charlotte Brown, a health aide. The plan involved Armstead persuading Brown to give them a ride, during which Williams strangled Brown while Armstead attempted to assist with a knife, inadvertently cutting Brown's neck. After the murder, they disposed of Brown's body and later returned home with her car. Armstead was charged as an adult, tried separately from Williams, and received a life sentence. Her conviction was upheld by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Armstead subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition, which was denied by the district court. Key issues on appeal included the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on felony murder, the constitutionality of juvenile jurisdiction in adult courts, and the denial of an abandonment of intent instruction. The appellate court will review the due process claim related to the jury instruction under 28 U.S.C. 2254, assessing whether her custody violates the U.S. Constitution. The findings of fact will be reviewed for clear error, while legal rulings will be reviewed de novo.
The failure of a state trial court to instruct the jury on a lesser offense typically does not raise a federal constitutional issue in habeas corpus proceedings, unless it results in a directed verdict that infringes upon Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The key question is whether the omission constituted a fundamental defect leading to a miscarriage of justice or a violation of due process. The burden on the appellant is particularly high when arguing an omission of instruction, as it is generally less likely to be prejudicial than a misstatement of law.
In this case, the appellant, Armstead, claimed that the failure to instruct on felony murder was unjust. However, her testimony indicated she had not withdrawn from the plan before the murder occurred, undermining her argument. The court found no basis for concluding that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, as Armstead failed to provide adequate reasoning for why the jury would have acquitted her of first-degree intentional homicide while convicting her of felony murder.
Additionally, Armstead contended that her right to present a defense was violated due to the trial court's refusal to give an abandonment of intent instruction. However, the court noted that her argument about abandoning intent shortly before the murder did not hold, as the action could not be retracted once the crime was in progress. The court referenced previous rulings to support this point, indicating that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals had also based its findings on similar reasoning.
Armstead has consistently claimed that Wis. Stat. 938.183 and 970.032 result in disparate treatment of children and adults in adult criminal court. The state appellate court ruled this argument moot, asserting that the failure to provide a felony murder instruction constituted harmless error, thus negating the need to examine her equal protection and due process claims. In the district court, Armstead reiterated her claims, but the respondent maintained that the state court's determination was an adequate and independent state ground, barring federal habeas review. Armstead's delayed response to this argument came after the district court had already issued its judgment, and although she acknowledged her mistake, she requested a merits review, arguing that failing to do so would lead to a fundamental miscarriage of justice. However, she provided no specific details regarding the alleged prejudice, resulting in a waiver of the issue. Furthermore, issues raised for the first time in a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) are typically viewed as untimely and unpreserved for appellate review unless the district court chooses to address them. Consequently, the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief to Armstead has been affirmed.
