Fortini v. Murphy
257 F.3d 39 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The exclusion of evidence by a state court, even if an error under state law, violates a defendant's federal due process right to present a defense only in extreme cases where the evidence is highly probative, critical to the defense, and its exclusion results in a fundamentally unfair trial.
Facts:
- On the evening of June 22, 1992, Ceasar Monterio repeatedly visited Robert Fortini's apartment building, where Fortini lived with his girlfriend and her cousin, whom Monterio was looking for.
- Later that evening, after being told the cousin was not home, occupants of a car shouted profanities while driving past Fortini's building. Around 11:50 p.m., Monterio returned and shouted curses and racial epithets toward the house.
- Fortini called the police, who did not dispatch an officer but told Fortini to try to get a license plate number if the person returned.
- Following the call, Fortini retrieved his shotgun and ammunition and sat on the unlit, first-floor porch of his building.
- Shortly before returning to Fortini's house, Monterio had physically assaulted or attempted to assault four men on a basketball court and yelled, 'I’ll kill them all...I’m the baddest motherfucker in town.' Fortini was not aware of this incident when it occurred.
- Around 1:15 a.m., Monterio returned to Fortini's building with a friend and began moving rapidly up the stairs to the porch where Fortini was waiting.
- According to Fortini, he yelled at Monterio to leave, but Monterio lunged toward him and the shotgun, at which point Fortini fired, killing Monterio.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Fortini was charged with murder in Massachusetts Superior Court (trial court).
- Prior to trial, Fortini filed a motion in limine to introduce evidence of the victim's violent acts immediately preceding the shooting, which the trial court excluded.
- Following a jury trial, Fortini was convicted of second degree murder.
- Fortini (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the Massachusetts Appeals Court (intermediate appellate court), with the Commonwealth as appellee.
- The Appeals Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that any evidentiary error was harmless.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the state's highest court) denied Fortini's petition for further appellate review.
- Fortini then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The district court dismissed the petition, ruling that Fortini had failed to exhaust his state remedies by not properly presenting the federal constitutional claim in state courts.
- Fortini (as appellant) appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state trial court's exclusion of evidence of a victim's recent violent acts, which were unknown to the defendant but relevant to supporting the defendant's claim that the victim was the first aggressor, violate the defendant's federal due process right to present a defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Boudin, Chief Judge.
No. The state trial court's exclusion of evidence of the victim's recent violent acts did not violate the defendant's due process right to present a defense because the exclusion did not result in a fundamentally unfair trial. The court reasoned that a due process violation under Chambers v. Mississippi occurs only in extreme cases. Here, the excluded evidence of the basketball court incident was not absolutely critical to Fortini's self-defense claim; it was indirect, corroborating evidence that merely supported Fortini's own direct testimony that Monterio lunged at him. The court distinguished this case from more egregious situations in Supreme Court precedents like Chambers, where excluded evidence was highly probative and central to the defense. Furthermore, the court held that even if the exclusion were a constitutional error, it was harmless under the Brecht v. Abrahamson standard because it did not have a 'substantial and injurious effect' on the verdict. The prosecution's theory of the case did not depend on disproving the lunge, but rather on proving that Fortini was the initial aggressor who went to the porch with his shotgun looking for trouble.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to elevate a state-law evidentiary error to the level of a federal due process violation. It clarifies that under the Chambers v. Mississippi doctrine, excluded evidence must be absolutely critical to the core of the defense, not merely helpful or corroborative of other testimony. The court's application of the Brecht harmless error standard for habeas corpus petitions, even where the state court did not conduct a constitutional harmless error analysis, solidifies that a more prosecution-friendly standard applies in federal collateral review. This case serves as a significant precedent illustrating the difficulty defendants face in challenging state court evidentiary rulings on federal constitutional grounds.
Unlock the full brief for Fortini v. Murphy