Helen Spry v. D. K. Johnson, No. 2:2016cv00423 - Document 32 (C.D. Cal. 2017)

Court Description: 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)

Download PDF

Helen Spry v. D. K. Johnson Doc. 32 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.