Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16 -CV-00265
11-09-2016
JASON LAMOUNTE MORGAN D.O.C. # 590378 v. DARREL VANNOY
MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY
MEMORANDUM RULING
For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc.13) of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein, after a review of the petitioner's Objections (Rec. Doc. 14), the respondent's Response (Rec. Doc. 15) an independent review of the record, a de novo determination of the issues, the court concludes that the findings are correct.
The petitioner filed a § 2254 petition alleging that his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated when the statements made to an officer by a deceased witness were admitted in trial. The Magistrate Judge used the less stringent harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt standard, established in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), to determine whether any alleged error in admitting the statements was harmless instead of the more difficult standard laid out by the Supreme Court in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993). See Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112, 116 (2007) (comparing the Brecht and Chapman harmless error standards and finding that the Brecht standard should apply in almost all § 2254 petitions and that it was a more difficult standard for a petitioner to meet). The proper standard for the court to apply in this § 2254 petition is the Brecht standard, under which to show an error is not harmless, the petitioner must show that the error "had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." Brecht, 507 U.S. at 631; see also Fratta v. Quarterman, 536 F.3d 485, 507-08 (5th Cir. 2008) (applying the Brecht standard to an alleged confrontation clause violation before the court on collateral review under § 2254).
The trial judge admitted the statements over the defendant's objection as non-hearsay statements used to show why the police took their subsequent investigative steps.
Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 13), p. 13.
Applying this standard of review, the court agrees with the conclusion of the Magistrate Judge that the alleged error was harmless because of the reasons stated in her Report and Recommendation, and because the petitioner has not shown actual prejudice because of the alleged error. The court conclude that all other findings made by the Magistrate Judge are correction under applicable law. Accordingly, the petition will be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Report and Recommendation (Rec. Doc. 13), p. 13-14. --------
Lake Charles, Louisiana, this 9 day of November, 2016.
/s/_________
PATRICIA MINALDI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE