Morales v. Portuondo - 154 F. Supp. 2d 706 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

Rule:

Habeas courts confronting a due process claim must examine state evidentiary rulings to determine whether those rulings deprived petitioner of a fundamentally fair trial. While erroneous evidentiary rulings do not automatically rise to the level of constitutional error, the court's duty on a petition for habeas corpus is to determine whether the excluded testimony was material to the presentation of the defense so as to deprive the defendant of fundamental fairness. To obtain habeas relief on these grounds, a petitioner must demonstrate first that the trial court's evidentiary ruling was erroneous and, second, that the erroneous ruling so infected the proceedings as to have rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. Even if the state court's evidentiary ruling is technically correct, and the evidence would otherwise be inadmissible under the state's rules of evidence, a petitioner may nonetheless be entitled to introduce such evidence if exclusion of the evidence would render his trial fundamentally unfair.

Facts:

Petitioner Jose Morales and co-defendant, Ruben Montalvo were convicted of murder in state court. After the trial, but before sentencing, Fornes told a priest, the co-defendant's mother, petitioner's attorney, and a Legal Aid attorney that he and two other individuals had committed the murder. Fornes's statements were never heard by a jury. After the declarant died, the priest and the Legal Aid attorney disclosed the declarant's statements. Only one witness placed Morales at the scene of the crime. Morales took the stand and asserted his innocence. Five other witnesses, called by the defense, testified that Morales was blocks away from the scene of the crime at or about the time of the murder. Another witness who was in the park and witnessed the murder testified that Morales and Montalvo were not there. The jury believed the prosecution's one eyewitness and rejected the testimony of the defense witnesses. Morales had a right to present evidence of Fornes's statements to a jury, but he was not permitted to do so. The state court determined that the statements to the mother and petitioner's attorney were inadmissible hearsay. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court granted the petition.

Issue:

Was the grant of the petition for habeas corpus proper?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

Habeas courts confronting a due process claim must examine state evidentiary rulings to determine whether those rulings deprived petitioner of a fundamentally fair trial. While erroneous evidentiary rulings do not automatically rise to the level of constitutional error, the court's duty on a petition for habeas corpus is to determine whether the excluded testimony was material to the presentation of the defense so as to deprive the defendant of fundamental fairness. To obtain habeas relief on these grounds, a petitioner must demonstrate first that the trial court's evidentiary ruling was erroneous and, second, that the erroneous ruling so infected the proceedings as to have rendered the trial fundamentally unfair. Even if the state court's evidentiary ruling is technically correct, and the evidence would otherwise be inadmissible under the state's rules of evidence, a petitioner may nonetheless be entitled to introduce such evidence if exclusion of the evidence would render his trial fundamentally unfair. Petitioner's due process rights were violated because he had a right to present evidence of the statements to a jury and the trial court improperly excluded the statements. The statements made to the mother and petitioner's attorney were admissible because the statements met the requirements of the exception for declarations against penal interest. The statements made to the priest and the Legal Aid attorney were admissible under the residual exception. In addition, the statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability and trustworthiness to make them admissible. Privileges did not bar admission of the statements. Thus, the petition for habeas corpus should be granted.