Since petitioner's contention that a Louisiana statute requiring
that confessions be admitted into evidence in their entirety
notwithstanding their inclusion of irrelevant and prejudicial
material is unconstitutional -- the sole federal question argued in
this Court -- was not raised, preserved, or passed on in the state
courts, the writ of certiorari is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction, as this Court will not decide federal questions
raised here for the first time on review of state court decisions.
Pp.
394 U. S.
438-439.
251 La. 827,
206 So. 2d
510, certiorari dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner brutally murdered a woman near New Orleans, and then
fled the State. He had been seen with his victim, and a warrant was
issued for his arrest. In the course of his flight, petitioner came
to Tucson, Arizona, where he decided to surrender. He flagged down
a police car and, after an interruption by the police to warn him
that he need not speak, that his speech might be used against him,
and that he had a right to contact an attorney, was taken to the
station house, where he poured out a confession. His confession was
introduced in its entirety in the subsequent trial for murder in
which petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death.
Page 394 U. S. 438
Petitioner does not now contend that his confession was
involuntary or that his admission of guilt to the Tucson police was
inadmissible in evidence. He objects solely to the admission of
those parts of his confession which he argues were both irrelevant
and prejudicial in his trial for murder. A Louisiana statute
requires that confessions must be admitted in their entirety,
La.Rev.Stat. § 15:450, and petitioner contends that this is
unconstitutional.
Although certiorari was granted to consider this question, the
fact emerged in oral argument that the sole federal question argued
here had never been raised, preserved, or passed upon in the state
courts below. It was very early established that the Court will not
decide federal constitutional issues raised here for the first time
on review of state court decisions. In
Crowell v.
Randell, 10 Pet. 368 (1836), Justice Story reviewed
the earlier cases commencing with
Owings v.
Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch 344 (1809), and came to
the conclusion that the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20, § 25, 1
Stat. 85, vested this Court with no jurisdiction unless a federal
question was raised and decided in the state court below. "If both
of these do not appear on the record, the appellate jurisdiction
fails."
35 U. S. 10 Pet.
368,
35 U. S. 391.
The Court has consistently refused to decide federal constitutional
issues raised here for the first time on review of state court
decisions both before the
Crowell opinion,
Miller v.
Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311,
17 U. S. 315
(1819), and since,
e.g., Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Oklahoma
Retail Grocers Assn., Inc., 360 U. S. 334,
360 U. S. 342,
n. 7 (1959);
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v.
Duel, 324 U. S. 154,
324 U. S.
160-163 (1945);
McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale
Transatlantique, 309 U. S. 430,
309 U. S.
434-435 (1940);
Whitney v. California,
274 U. S. 357,
274 U. S.
362-363 (1927);
Dewey v. Des Moines,
173 U. S. 193,
173 U. S.
197-201 (1899);
Murdock v. City of
Memphis, 20 Wall. 590 (1875).
Page 394 U. S. 439
In addition to the question of jurisdiction arising under the
statute controlling our power to review final judgments of state
courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1257, there are sound reasons for this.
Questions not raised below are those on which the record is very
likely to be inadequate, since it certainly was not compiled with
those questions in mind. And, in a federal system, it is important
that state courts be given the first opportunity to consider the
applicability of state statutes in light of constitutional
challenge, since the statutes may be construed in a way which saves
their constitutionality. Or the issue may be blocked by an adequate
state ground. Even though States are not free to avoid
constitutional issues on inadequate state grounds,
O'Connor v.
Ohio, 385 U. S. 92
(1966), they should be given the first opportunity to consider
them.
In view of the petitioner's admitted failure to raise the issue
he presents here in any way below, the failure of the state court
to pass on this issue, the desirability of giving the State the
first opportunity to apply its statute on an adequate record, and
the fact that a federal habeas remedy may remain if no state
procedure for raising the issue is available to petitioner, the
writ is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and MR JUSTICE FORTAS
concur in the dismissal of the writ, believing it to have been
improvidently granted.
