Habeas Corpus — ineffective assistance

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Criminal

Habeas Corpus — ineffective assistance

Although a jury instruction in a state court trial was erroneous, it was not unreasonable for the court to find the failure to object to it to be not prejudicial.

“Applying this highly deferential standard, we do not find that the Indiana Supreme Court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law; rather, we find that the Indiana Supreme Court reasonably concluded that Carter was not sufficiently prejudiced by Choate’s failure to challenge the attempted murder jury instruction to warrant relief. The Indiana Supreme Court correctly acknowledged the Strickland standard as controlling and applied it, explaining that it would ‘assess[] the likelihood of prejudice’ to Carter. It acknowledged that the language of the attempted murder jury instruction was imperfect, but found that it did not sufficiently prejudice Carter to warrant relief. The court reasoned that the jury instructions as a whole, coupled with the evidence presented at trial as well as statements made by the prosecution and defense during closing arguments, made clear to the jury that it was required to find that Carter intended to kill Stegemiller in order to convict him of attempted murder. Therefore, the court determined that the result of Carter’s appeal would have been the same absent Choate’s failure to challenge the jury instruction, defeating his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”

Affirmed.

13-2466 Carter v. Butts

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Barker, J., Bauer, J.