IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-10058
Summary Calendar
_____________________
Gregory Warren Staats,
Petitioner/Appellant,
versus
Wayne Scott, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Institutional Division
Respondent/Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:94-CV-126-Y)
_________________________________________________________________
(July 14, 1995)
Before JOHNSON, GARWOOD and SMITH, Circuit Judges.*
PER CURIAM:
State prisoner filed habeas corpus action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 alleging that the improper admission of certain
testimony at his trial for aggravated sexual assault violated his
right to due process. The district court denied relief and we
AFFIRM.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A Texas jury found Gregory Warren Staats guilty of the
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
aggravated sexual assault of Betty Smith1 and the trial court
assessed punishment at forty years of imprisonment. In affirming
this conviction, the state appellate court addressed the
admission of challenged testimony by Teresa Adair, an emergency
room nurse. Adair testified, without objection from defense
counsel, that Smith, who was with Adair for an extended period of
time in the emergency room just following the event, was crying,
fidgeting and agitated. Further, Adair testified, without
objection, that Smith's hair was messed up, that there was
foreign matter on her, that her makeup was smeared and that she
was a wreck. The state appellate court found no error in the
admission of this testimony as to Smith's emotional and physical
disarray.
The court did find error, however, when, over defense
counsel's objection, Adair told the jury that she felt "that
[Smith] had been violated in some way that she did not want to
be. She was very upset about it and was in emotional disarray,
and I felt like things had happened to her that were not what she
wanted that particular night." This statement, the state
appellate court reasoned, did not present Adair's observations
but rather her opinion as to what had happened to Smith. Even
though the state appellate court found that the district court
erred in overruling defense counsel's objection as to this
statement, the court found this error to be harmless due to the
wealth of other competent testimony in the record on this issue.
1
Betty smith was the victim's pseudonym.
2
As the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused his petition
for discretionary review, Staats turned to the federal courts
seeking habeas corpus relief.2 In his section 2254 petition,
Staats contended that the admission of Adair's lay opinion
testimony violated his right to due process. The district court
denied relief, however, and Staats timely appealed to this Court.
II. DISCUSSION
A state court's erroneous evidentiary ruling is a ground for
habeas corpus relief only if the error violated a specific
constitutional right or deprived the defendant of due process by
rendering the trial fundamentally unfair. Cupit v. Whitley, 28
F.3d 532, 536 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1128
(1995). Thus, even the erroneous admission of prejudicial
testimony does not justify habeas corpus relief unless it is
material in the sense of a crucial, critical, highly significant
factor in the context of the entire trial. Thomas v. Lynaugh,
812 F.2d 225, 230 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 132 (1987);
Skillhern v. Estelle, 720 F.2d 839, 8512 (5th Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 105 S.Ct. 224 (1984).
In this case, Adair's challenged opinion testimony goes to
the issue of whether Smith consented to have sex with Staats. In
light of the significant amount of other evidence in the record
relevant to the issue of consent, the district court found that
the challenged statement was not crucial, critical and highly
significant. We agree.
2
Staats did not apply for state habeas corpus relief.
3
This other evidence included the testimony of Charla
Erskine, a motel manager, who testified that Smith ran into the
motel lobby exclaiming that she had been raped and that a man was
after her. It further included the testimony of Officer Sutton
that Smith's emotional state and physical appearance were
consistent with Smith's report of rape to the police. Dr. Daniel
Naberhaus also testified, based on his physical examination of
Smith and on her emotional state, that it was his conclusion that
Smith had been raped. Finally, the victim herself testified that
she had not consented.
The testimony of all four of these witnesses was
substantially similar to Adair's challenged statement. Given
this considerable duplicative evidence, we cannot conclude that,
in the context of the trial as a whole, this statement was
crucial, critical and highly significant. Thomas, 812 F.2d at
230. Thus, Staats claim must fail.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
4