Roger Matthew Walters v. Manfred Maass, Superintendent
95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 602, 45 F.3d 1355, 95 Daily Journal DAR 1079 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an attempt conviction to be constitutionally valid, a defendant's conduct must constitute a 'substantial step' that strongly corroborates a specific intent to commit the particular crime charged and, in the ordinary course of things, would naturally lead to its commission; mere general intent inferred from prior bad acts is insufficient to elevate an ambiguous preparatory act to a substantial step for all related but distinct crimes.
Facts:
- In 1981, Roger Matthew Walters approached a thirteen-year-old girl using the ploy of searching for a nonexistent white German shepherd, offered her money, and subsequently kidnapped, forcibly raped, and sodomized her.
- Walters served a jail sentence for the 1981 crimes.
- In 1987, Walters approached a different thirteen-year-old girl using the same nonexistent white German shepherd ploy.
- Walters persistently attempted to lure this victim into his truck.
- Walters did not own a German shepherd in 1981 or 1987.
- Walters followed the victim home after she resisted his attempts to enter his truck.
- When questioned by a police officer, Walters made statements suggesting sexual temptations toward the victim and referred to her as '13 going on 24'.
- Walters' prior conviction was for first-degree rape of an adult, and he denied having prior problems with juveniles or being a 'tree jumper' who molests young girls.
Procedural Posture:
- Roger Matthew Walters was convicted in an Oregon state court of attempted first-degree kidnapping, attempted first-degree rape, and attempted first-degree sodomy of a thirteen-year-old girl.
- Walters' convictions were affirmed by the Oregon Supreme Court.
- Walters filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in a federal district court, challenging his conviction and sentence.
- The federal district court denied Walters' habeas corpus petition.
- Walters appealed the district court's denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (appellant).
- The Ninth Circuit initially filed majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions on December 8, 1993, but later granted Walters' petition for rehearing and withdrew those opinions.
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 defendant's attempt to entice a victim into a truck, alongside evidence of prior similar sexual assaults using the same lure, constitute a constitutionally sufficient 'substantial step' toward attempted rape and attempted sodomy to sustain a conviction under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Poole, Circuit Judge
No, a defendant's attempt to entice a victim into a truck, even with the backdrop of a prior conviction for rape and sodomy using a similar lure, does not constitute a constitutionally sufficient 'substantial step' toward attempted rape and attempted sodomy. The court applied the 'substantial step' test, which requires conduct to advance the criminal purpose and strongly corroborate its existence. While Walters' intent to commit some sexual assault was inferable from his actions and prior bad acts, the mere act of enticing the victim into a truck, without more, does not strongly corroborate an intent to commit rape and sodomy specifically, nor does it, in the ordinary course of events, naturally lead to those specific crimes. The link between enticement and the specific intent for rape and sodomy was deemed too attenuated for a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for those particular attempt crimes. However, the court affirmed that the enticement was a substantial step for attempted kidnapping. The court also held that the admission of the prior bad acts evidence did not violate due process because it was relevant to show intent, not too remote in time (given intervening incarceration), and accompanied by a limiting instruction.
Dissenting - Tang, Senior Circuit Judge
Yes, the Oregon Supreme Court's finding that Walters' efforts to have his intended victim get into his truck constituted a 'substantial step' toward rape and sodomy should be upheld. The dissenting judge argued that the 'actus reus' (the physical act of a crime) element for criminal laws is generally a matter of state law, and federal habeas courts should defer to state court determinations on such questions. Since Oregon law explicitly states that 'enticement' can constitute a 'substantial step' for an attempt conviction, and there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of enticement under state law, the federal court should not re-examine this state law determination, as it did not violate the U.S. Constitution.
Analysis:
This case refines the application of the 'substantial step' doctrine in attempt crimes, particularly regarding the evidentiary connection required between an overt act and the specific ultimate offense intended. It highlights that while prior bad acts are admissible to show general intent or plan, they cannot independently transform an ambiguous preparatory act into a 'substantial step' for distinct and more severe crimes if the act itself does not strongly corroborate intent for those specific offenses or naturally lead to them. The decision underscores the high bar for federal habeas relief on sufficiency of evidence, emphasizing the constitutional standard under Jackson v. Virginia and the need for federal courts to avoid re-examining state law questions unless a federal constitutional violation is evident. It provides important guidance for prosecuting attempt crimes where the initial actions are preliminary and capable of multiple interpretations.
