Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 16-1461
CHARLENE CONNORS,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH FITZPATRICK, et al.,
Respondents, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Barron, Selya, and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
Elizabeth R. Dembitzer, with whom Committee for Public
Counsel Services was on brief, for appellant.
Ryan E. Ferch, Assistant Attorney General of Massachusetts,
with whom Maura Healey, Attorney General of Massachusetts, was on
brief, for appellees.
November 15, 2017
Per Curiam. After careful consideration of the oral
arguments of counsel, the record, and the briefs, we affirm on de
novo review the district court's decision to deny habeas corpus
relief for substantially the same reasons stated by the district
court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Charlene Connors contends that the Commonwealth did not
provide sufficient evidence to the jury to establish her "specific
intent to gain some undue advantage . . . by an act or acts which
[s]he took knowing them to be wrongful and in violation of an
affirmative duty." Massachusetts state courts apply an
insufficiency of evidence standard substantially identical to the
standard promulgated by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Virginia,
443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). See Linton v. Saba, 812 F.3d 112, 120
(1st Cir. 2016) ("[T]he evidence offered by the Commonwealth,
together with reasonable inferences therefrom, when viewed in its
light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was sufficient to
persuade a rational jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence
of every element of the crime charged." (quoting Commonwealth v.
Linton, 924 N.E.2d 722, 733 (Mass. 2010))). Applying that
standard, a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable
doubt that Connors knowingly participated in the embezzlement.
Hence, we agree with the district court that Connors has "not
demonstrated that the decision reached by the jury and affirmed by
- 2 -
the appellate court contradicted clearly established Supreme Court
case law. Therefore, she is not entitled to habeas relief on her
insufficiency of evidence claim." Connors v. Massachusetts Parole
Bd., 2016 WL 1642925, at *3 (D. Mass. Apr. 25, 2016).
2. Jury Instructions
Habeas corpus relief for claims of
improper jury instructions under state law is only available when
the improper instruction “by itself so infected the entire trial
that the resulting conviction violates due process.” Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 (1991) (quoting Cupp v. Naughten, 414
U.S. 141, 147 (1973)). Although inartful at times, the judge's
jury instructions explaining the term "fiduciary" in the
embezzlement statute, taken in context, did not reach the level of
taint required by Estelle. Those instructions did not strip the
jury of its ability to determine an element of the crime nor did
they direct the jury toward a verdict for the Commonwealth. Thus
we agree with the district court that Connors has not demonstrated
that the decision of the state court contradicts clearly
established federal law as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and
she is not entitled to habeas relief on the jury instruction issue.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
- 3 -
Connors v. Grenier
Combined Opinion