Petitioner, who, upon a plea of not guilty by reason of
insanity, was found guilty of second-degree murder by an Indiana
jury, sought federal habeas corpus relief after the Indiana Supreme
Court affirmed the conviction, claiming,
inter alia, that
he had been denied due process because he had been convicted upon
evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
was sane at the time of the killing. The District Court denied the
writ, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a challenge
to the sufficiency of the evidence presents a federal due process
issue "only where a state court conviction is totally devoid of
evidentiary support."
Held: Although a state prisoner is entitled to a
determination whether the record evidence could support a finding
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
Jackson v. Virginia,
ante, p. 307, nevertheless a remand for further consideration
in light of
Jackson is inappropriate here. The Court of
Appeals properly deferred to a rule of Indiana law permitting
sanity to be established by either expert or lay testimony, and
although that court applied an improper legal standard in
considering the due process claim, it appears that such claim
concerned the above Indiana rule, and that the evidence in support
of the conviction was constitutionally adequate under the
Jackson standard.
Certiorari granted; 581 F. d 639, affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
Upon a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, the petitioner
was found guilty by an Indiana jury of murder in the second degree.
The Indiana Supreme Court upon direct appeal affirmed the
conviction.
Moore v. State, 260 Ind. 154, 293 N E.2d 28
(1973). The petitioner then sought a writ of habeas corpus in a
Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He
claimed,
inter alia, that he had been denied due process
of law because he had been convicted upon evidence allegedly
insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable
Page 443 U. S. 714
doubt that he was sane at the time the victim was killed.
* The District
Court denied the writ, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed. 581 F.2d 639 (1978).
In holding that the District Court had been correct in rejecting
the petitioner's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his conviction, the Court of Appeals stated that such a
challenge presents a federal due process issue "only where a state
court conviction is totally devoid of evidentiary support."
Id. at 642. The petitioner claims that this was error, and
he urges that, under
In re Winship, 397 U.
S. 358 (1970), a state prisoner is entitled to a
determination whether the record evidence could support a finding
of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree.
Jackson v.
Virginia, ante, p.
443 U. S. 307.
Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that
a remand for further consideration in light of
Jackson v.
Virginia would be inappropriate.
The petitioner has contended that the prosecution failed to meet
its burden because it relied upon lay witnesses to prove sanity
without providing any expert testimony to rebut his expert opinion
testimony. But, as the Court of Appeals noted, under Indiana law,
sanity may be established by either expert or lay testimony. The
state appellate court, in an opinion thoroughly discussing the
record evidence and the petitioner's sufficiency challenge,
concluded that the lay evidence in this case could have been
credited by the jury, and it held that the State's evidence was
fully sufficient to support a jury finding beyond a reasonable
doubt that the petitioner was sane at the time of the killing.
The Court of Appeals properly deferred to the Indiana law
governing proof of sanity. Although that court applied an improper
legal standard when it considered the petitioner's
Page 443 U. S. 715
due process claim, it is clear from its opinion that the essence
of that challenge concerned the rule of state law that permits the
State to rely on lay proof of sanity. It is likewise clear from the
record that, under the standard enunciated in
Jackson v.
Virginia, the evidence in support of this conviction was
constitutionally adequate.
Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment
of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
* The District Court found, and the Court of Appeals agreed,
that the petitioner had failed to exhaust his available state
remedies on all but his challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence. The petitioner takes issue with this ruling, but we are
satisfied that it was correct.
