Henry v. Mississippi
379 U.S. 443 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's procedural rule requiring a contemporaneous objection will not be considered an adequate and independent state ground sufficient to bar federal review of a constitutional claim, unless the state's insistence on the rule serves a legitimate state interest and the petitioner did not deliberately bypass the procedure for strategic reasons.
Facts:
- Petitioner, Henry, was accused of disturbing the peace by making indecent proposals to an 18-year-old hitchhiker he had given a ride.
- After Henry's arrest, a police officer went to his home to investigate.
- Henry's wife gave the officer consent and the keys to search Henry's car.
- During the search, the officer discovered that the car's cigarette lighter was non-functional and the ashtray was full of Dentyne chewing gum wrappers.
- These specific details found in the car corroborated the hitchhiker's earlier testimony about the car's interior.
Procedural Posture:
- Henry was convicted of disturbing the peace in a Mississippi trial court.
- During trial, Henry's counsel failed to object to a police officer's testimony regarding evidence from an allegedly illegal search of Henry's car at the time it was introduced.
- At the close of the State's case, counsel moved for a directed verdict, arguing in part that the evidence was illegally obtained. The trial court denied the motion.
- The motion for a directed verdict was renewed at the close of all evidence and was again denied by the trial court.
- On appeal, the Mississippi Supreme Court (the state's highest court) first issued an opinion reversing the conviction, finding the evidence was improperly admitted.
- After the State filed a 'Suggestion of Error,' the Mississippi Supreme Court withdrew its initial opinion and affirmed the conviction, holding that Henry's failure to make a contemporaneous objection barred his constitutional claim.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Mississippi Supreme Court.
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's contemporaneous objection rule constitute an adequate and independent state ground that forecloses U.S. Supreme Court review of a federal constitutional claim, when the objection was instead raised in a motion for a directed verdict?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. A state procedural default does not bar federal review of a constitutional claim unless the state procedural rule serves a legitimate state interest and was not deliberately bypassed. The question of when a state procedural default precludes federal review is itself a federal question. While Mississippi’s contemporaneous-objection rule serves the legitimate state interest of promoting judicial efficiency and avoiding retrials, that interest may have been substantially served in this case by the petitioner's motion for a directed verdict, which gave the trial court an opportunity for corrective action. However, the record suggests the possibility that counsel deliberately bypassed the rule for strategic reasons, which would constitute a waiver of the federal claim. Because the question of waiver requires an evidentiary hearing, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for a determination on whether petitioner knowingly and deliberately bypassed the state's procedure.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
No. The state procedural rule should not bar federal review. There is no evidence in the record to support a finding of a conscious and intentional waiver of the petitioner's constitutional claim; the Mississippi Supreme Court itself characterized the failure to object as an "honest mistake." The case should not be remanded for a "piecemeal" hearing on waiver, but rather the Court should decide the federal constitutional question now. Furthermore, Mississippi courts have previously exercised discretion to overlook this procedural rule in cases involving fundamental constitutional rights, proving the rule is not so absolute as to be an "adequate" state ground to preclude federal review.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes. The state's contemporaneous-objection rule is an adequate and independent state ground that bars federal review. The majority's position is a 'fanciful' and unrealistic view of trial practice, as it would be extraordinary for a trial judge to identify a single, vague sentence in a motion for a directed verdict and take complex, sua sponte corrective action. The contemporaneous-objection rule serves the powerful state interest of maximizing correct decisions and minimizing errors and mistrials. The Court's opinion severely dilutes the adequate state ground doctrine and improperly extends the logic of Fay v. Noia from federal habeas corpus to direct review, thereby undermining principles of federalism.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the adequate and independent state ground doctrine, particularly for state procedural defaults. It establishes that the mere existence of a procedural bar is not enough to prevent federal review of a constitutional claim; the rule must serve a legitimate state interest that was not otherwise satisfied. By importing the "deliberate bypass" standard from the habeas corpus context of Fay v. Noia, the Court created a path for defendants to overcome procedural errors on direct review. This decision signaled increased federal oversight of state criminal procedures to ensure the vindication of federal rights, blurring the lines between direct appeal and collateral review and creating tension in federal-state judicial relations.
Unlock the full brief for Henry v. Mississippi