Etienne v. Edmark ( 2024 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 23-1946
DICKENS ETIENNE,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
MICHELLE EDMARK,
Respondent, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Barron, Chief Judge,
Lynch and Thompson, Circuit Judges.
Michael G. Eaton, with whom Donna J. Brown and Wadleigh, Starr
& Peters, P.L.L.C. were on brief, for petitioner.
Elizabeth C. Woodcock, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Office of the Solicitor General, New Hampshire Department of
Justice, with whom John M. Formella, Attorney General, and Anthony
J. Galdieri, Solicitor General, were on brief, for respondent.
October 21, 2024
LYNCH, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Dickens Etienne was
convicted by a jury in New Hampshire state court on November 23,
2004 for the January 28, 2004 first-degree murder of Larry Lemieux.
A conviction of first-degree murder under New Hampshire law
requires the state to show that the defendant's acts were
"deliberate and premeditated." N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§§ 630:1-a(I)(a), 630:1-a(II). Etienne admitted that he had shot
Lemieux, but argued that he had acted in self-defense or in defense
of another and so had not acted with premeditation. Etienne was
sentenced to life without parole.
Roughly two weeks after Etienne's conviction, the
prosecution disclosed to Etienne's defense counsel in the murder
case, for the first time, a proffer letter dated June 30, 2004
from other prosecutors in that office who recommended a suspended
sentence as to drug charges against Jose Gomez in an unrelated
case. Gomez was an important prosecution witness, among others,
at Etienne's trial.
Etienne then moved for a new trial, arguing that this
was exculpatory evidence which undercut Gomez's testimony and the
failure to produce the proffer letter violated Etienne's due
process rights under both the state and federal constitutions.
See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); see also State v.
Laurie, 653 A.2d 549, 552 (N.H. 1995). The state trial court found
- 2 -
that the failure to disclose the proffer letter to Etienne had not
prejudiced Etienne and denied his motion for new trial.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed that denial and
Etienne's conviction, specifically finding, for a number of
reasons described further below, that Etienne had not been
prejudiced under the New Hampshire case law setting even stricter
standards than Brady.1 See State v. Etienne, 35 A.3d 523, 553
(N.H. 2011).
On December 13, 2018, Etienne filed a petition for habeas
corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Hampshire. The district court denied relief, which denial Etienne
now appeals.2 See Etienne v. Edmark, No. 18-cv-1156-SM, 2023 WL
7220756 (D.N.H. Nov. 2, 2023).
The issue before us is whether Etienne has met his burden
of showing that the New Hampshire Supreme Court decision that he
1 "[T]he New Hampshire constitutional right to present all
favorable proofs affords greater protection to a criminal
defendant [than the federal Brady standard]." Laurie, 653 A.2d at
552.
2 The district court acted after remand from this Court. The
district court initially denied Etienne's petition in 2020, which
Etienne then appealed to this Court. See Etienne v. Edmark, No.
18-cv-1156-SM, 2020 WL 6161421 (D.N.H. Oct. 21, 2020). With
respect to Etienne's Brady claim, we granted Etienne's request for
a certificate of appealability, vacated the district court's
judgment, and remanded to the district court because we saw "no
indication on the docket that [the trial] transcripts ever were
filed" with the district court as required by Rule 5(c) of the
Rules Governing U.S.C. § 2254 Cases. Etienne v. Edmark, No. 20-
2067, 2023 WL 3063494, *1-2 (1st Cir. Apr. 20, 2023).
- 3 -
was not prejudiced as required under Brady (and New Hampshire law)
"involved an unreasonable application of[] clearly established
Federal law" under the deferential standards of the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1). We affirm the denial of habeas relief.
I.
Because Etienne has conceded at oral argument that he
does not challenge the New Hampshire Supreme Court's factual
determinations,3 we describe the relevant findings as recounted by
that court. See Scoggins v. Hall, 765 F.3d 53, 54 (1st Cir. 2014).
We describe first the New Hampshire Supreme Court's explanation of
the proffer letter at issue:
On December 7, 2004, the defendant's trial
counsel obtained from the Attorney General's
Office the proffer letter, dated June 30, 2004,
between Susan Morrell and Gomez's counsel, Adam
Bernstein. Attorney Morrell explained the
letter's contents to the defendant's trial
counsel as follows:
Mr. Gomez did not receive any consideration for
his "cooperation" in the matter of State v.
Dickens Etienne. At no time was he offered, or
3 Etienne also cannot argue that the state court based its
decision on an "unreasonable determination of the facts" because
he has not preserved any challenge to the state court's factual
determinations. See Castillo v. Matesanz, 348 F.3d 1, 12 (1st
Cir. 2003) (arguments not made in habeas petition or certificate
of appealability are waived); see also Gomes v. Silva, 958 F.3d
12, 19 n.4 (1st Cir. 2020)("[T]he special prophylaxis of section
2254(d)(2) applies only to determinations of basic, primary, or
historical facts." (quoting Ouber v. Guarino, 293 F.3d 19, 27 (1st
Cir. 2002))).
- 4 -
given any consideration in connection with
Etienne's case.
The consideration to which I refer in the [June
30, 2004] letter was to a proffer conducted on
May 7, 2004 at the Manchester Police Department.
The subject matter of our interview pertained to
Mr. Gomez's knowledge of illegal drug activities
in the Manchester area.
Etienne, 35 A.3d at 547.
Etienne had contended that this letter showed that
Gomez's testimony that he had not received such a plea deal on the
drug charges was false and that it showed Gomez was biased. Id.
at 546. The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that under New
Hampshire's stringent disclosure rules, the prosecutors in
Etienne's case should have disclosed the letter, although they did
not know of it and it had been issued by other prosecutors in the
office. Id. at 549-50.
Applying New Hampshire law, the court held that the
proffer letter was favorable to Etienne because it "would have
strengthened the defense's argument and given greater weight to
its assertions that Gomez had, in fact, received a plea deal."
Id. at 548. The court then assumed that the proffer letter was
"knowingly withheld" and shifted the burden to the state "to prove,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the undisclosed evidence would not
have affected the verdict." Id. at 550 (quoting State v. Shepherd,
977 A.2d 1029, 1035 (N.H. 2009)). The New Hampshire Supreme Court
held that Etienne was not prejudiced for two reasons:
- 5 -
(1) "the undisclosed evidence would not have
altered defense counsel's strategy, which
centered on impeachment of Gomez" and
(2) "the evidence would not have altered the
outcome because even if the impeachment had
caused the jury to disregard Gomez's testimony
altogether, there was overwhelming additional
evidence of premeditation before the jury."
Id. at 550-51.
In support of the first reason, the court explained that
"Gomez's cooperation with the State to receive consideration in an
unrelated case . . . was only one of the areas in which the defense
attempted to discredit him, and the remaining avenues of
impeachment were unaffected by the undisclosed information." Id.
at 551. In support of the second reason, the court explained that
"many witnesses testified to the events leading up to the homicide,
to the circumstances of the homicide, and to the defendant's
actions thereafter," and recounted this additional evidence of
premeditation in detail. Id. at 552-53. The court concluded that
"[t]he jury was thus presented with overwhelming evidence, aside
from Gomez's testimony, that the defendant purposely, with
deliberation and premeditation, killed Lemieux." Id. at 553.
II.
"Our review of a district court's denial of a petition
for habeas corpus is de novo." Watkins v. Medeiros, 36 F.4th 373,
383-84 (1st Cir. 2022).
Under de novo review, we turn directly to the AEDPA
- 6 -
question. "AEDPA 'demands that a federal habeas court measure a
state court's decision on the merits against a series of peculiarly
deferential standards.'" Ayala v. Alves, 85 F.4th 36, 54 (1st
Cir. 2023) (quoting Porter v. Coyne-Fague, 35 F.4th 68, 74 (1st
Cir. 2022)). Specifically, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), "a writ of
habeas corpus . . . shall not be granted . . . unless" the
challenged state court decision was:
(1) . . . contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court
of the United States; or
(2) . . . based on an unreasonable determination
of the facts in light of the evidence presented
in the State court proceeding.
(Emphasis added). The "unreasonable application of clearly
established Federal law" prong has been further defined as follows.
"To meet [this] standard, a [petitioner] must show far more than
that the state court's decision was 'merely wrong' or 'even clear
error'"; rather, "[t]he [petitioner] must show that the state
court's decision is so obviously wrong that its error lies 'beyond
any possibility for fairminded disagreement.'" Shinn v. Kayer,
592 U.S. 111, 118 (2020) (first quoting Virginia v. LeBlanc, 582
U.S. 91, 94 (2017), then quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S.
86, 103 (2011)); see also Porter, 35 F.4th at 75.
III.
To make out a Brady claim, the Brady petitioner must
- 7 -
show not only that evidence "favorable to the accused . . . [was]
suppressed by the State" but also that "prejudice . . . ensued"
from the suppressed evidence. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263,
281-82 (1999); see also Healy v. Spencer, 453 F.3d 21, 26 (1st
Cir. 2006) ("As a federal court sitting in habeas, . . . we utilize
the [federal] Brady standard of prejudice."). A defendant is
prejudiced under Brady "when there is a reasonable probability
that, had the evidence been disclosed, the result of the proceeding
would have been different." Turner v. United States, 582 U.S.
313, 324 (2017) (quoting Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. 449, 469-70
(2009)); see also United States v. Spencer, 873 F.3d 1, 6 (1st
Cir. 2017) (quoting Turner, 582 U.S. at 324). "A reasonable
probability of a different result is one in which the suppressed
evidence undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial."
Spencer, 873 F.3d at 6 (quoting Turner, 582 U.S. at 324).
Under our deferential review, the New Hampshire Supreme
Court's second reason for holding that Etienne was not
prejudiced -- that there was overwhelming independent evidence of
premeditation from witnesses other than Gomez before the
jury -- alone suffices to affirm the denial of habeas relief.4
4 In his opening brief, Etienne seems to cursorily suggest
that timely disclosure of the proffer letter might have altered
defense counsel's strategy, but he does not explain which aspects
of defense counsel's strategy would have changed or how those
changes would have altered the record in this case. Because he
does not do so, any contention that the New Hampshire Supreme Court
- 8 -
Under New Hampshire law, the offense of first-degree
murder requires the state to show that: (1) the defendant "cause[d]
the death of another" and (2) did so "[p]urposely." See N.H. Rev.
Stat. Ann. § 630:1-a(I)(a). New Hampshire law defines "purposely"
to mean that "the actor's conscious object is the death of another,
and . . . his act or acts in furtherance of that object were
deliberate and premeditated." Id. § 630:1-a(II).
[S]ufficient proof of [deliberation and
premeditation] does not require evidence that
the defendant devoted time to quiet reflection,
but may rest on inferences reasonably drawn from
the "character of the weapon employed, the force
and number of blows inflicted, the location and
severity of the wounds, the place of the crime,
previous remarks and conduct indicating
preparation, subsequent acts and statements, and
every circumstance having a legitimate bearing
upon the subject . . ."
State v. Therrien, 533 A.2d 346, 350 (N.H. 1987) (quoting State v.
Sadvari, 462 A.2d 102, 104 (N.H. 1983)); see also State v. Patten,
813 A.2d 497, 499-500 (N.H. 2002).
In light of the record evidence, the New Hampshire
Supreme Court concluded:
Because the record supports the trial court's
did not consider the additional evidence of premeditation it
recounts in light of this hypothetical altered record is therefore
waived. See United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st. Cir.
1990) (finding waiver when counsel fails to "put flesh on [an
argument's] bones" by merely "advert[ing] to [the argument] in a
perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed
argumentation"). Additionally, like the district court, we do not
address the argument that Etienne's habeas petition is untimely
because his petition fails on the merits.
- 9 -
finding that "while Gomez's testimony may have
bolstered the State's case, it was not of such a
nature that further impeachment by the proffer
letter would have altered the result," we affirm
the trial court's denial of the defendant's
motion for new trial based on the State's alleged
failure to disclose exculpatory information. In
light of the fact that the State Constitution
affords greater protection than does the Federal
Constitution, see Laurie, 139 N.H. at 330, 653
A.2d 549, we reach the same result under the
Federal Constitution.
Etienne, 35 A.3d at 553.
Etienne has not shown -- as he must -- that the New
Hampshire Supreme Court's decision on Brady prejudice was "so
obviously wrong that its error lies 'beyond any possibility for
fairminded disagreement.'" Shinn, 592 U.S. at 118 (quoting
Harrington, 562 U.S. at 103); see also Turner, 582 U.S. at 324;
Strickler, 527 U.S. at 281-82; Spencer, 873 F.3d at 6. Indeed,
under our highly deferential review, we see no basis to conclude
the New Hampshire Supreme Court "unreasonably applied" Brady. See
McLaughlin v. Corsini, 577 F.3d 15, 20 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding
that state court's no-prejudice determination was not
"unreasonable application" of Brady); Healy, 453 F.3d at 27 (same);
McCambridge v. Hall, 303 F.3d 24, 42 (1st Cir. 2002) (en banc)
(same).5
Etienne makes an incorrect argument that the New Hampshire
5
Supreme Court did not address his Brady claim because its opinion
relied largely on New Hampshire cases. The argument is meritless.
Where, as here, the state court "used a standard more favorable to
[the defendant] than the federal standard, we consider the Brady
- 10 -
The New Hampshire Supreme Court reasonably concluded,
after a detailed review of the record, that "there was overwhelming
additional evidence of premeditation before the jury." Etienne,
35 A.3d at 551. This included evidence from many different
witnesses other than Gomez6 of: Etienne's relationship with
Lemieux, including Etienne's own statements about Lemieux;
Etienne's actions shortly before killing Lemieux; and Etienne's
statements and actions after killing Lemieux.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court explained the
relationships between many of the trial witnesses before the
killing in the facts section of its opinion. Etienne lived in a
second-floor apartment at 265 Central Street in Manchester, New
Hampshire with his girlfriend Cameo Jette, his friend Israel
Rivera, and Jette's friend, Jenna Battistelli. Id. at 530. One
issue to have been 'adjudicated on the merits' within the meaning
of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)." Healy, 453 F.3d at 26. Further, Etienne
failed to raise it in either his federal habeas petition or his
certificate of appealability. See Castillo, 348 F.3d at 12(arguments not raised in habeas petition or motion for certificate
of appealability are ordinarily waived).
6 Although not stated in the New Hampshire Supreme Court's
opinion, the record shows that twenty-three prosecution witnesses
other than Gomez testified at Etienne's trial: Enoch Willard,
Geoffrey Smith, Nicole Almonte, Autumn Millette, Bernadette
Bimbris, Detective Robert Freitas, Gary Desruisseaux, Terry
Ouellette, Steven Ostrowski, David Garcia, Tina Gobis, Jenna
Battistelli, Jennifer Hannaford, Nancy Vaillancourt, Israel
Rivera, Dia Etienne Jeanlys, Detective John Patti, Amy Hannaford,
Dr. Thomas Andrew, Latorre Johnson, Heather Metsch, Detective
Carlo Capano, and Cameo Jette.
- 11 -
floor above, in that same apartment building, lived Jennifer
Hannaford. Id. Jennifer Hannaford's sister Amy Hannaford was
then pregnant with Etienne's child, and Jennifer Hannaford had
three children with Louis Pierre, with whom Etienne was
"particularly close." Id. Etienne was also friends with Jose
Gomez, Michael Roux, and David Garcia. Id. "[Etienne] and his
friends were also acquainted with Larry Lemieux and Lemieux's
friend, Latorre Johnson." Id.As the New Hampshire Supreme Court explained, "[p]rior
to the homicide, the relationship between [Etienne] and Lemieux
was tense." Id. at 552. As the court explained earlier in its
opinion, in December 2003, Lemieux had "hit on" Jette, denigrating
Etienne by asking Jette "what somebody like [her] was doing with
somebody like [Etienne]." Id. at 530. Etienne had forbidden
Lemieux from entering Etienne's apartment when he was not present
"because of Lemieux's interaction with Jette." Id. at 552; id. at
530. "In January 2004, Lemieux told Tina Gobis, whom he was
dating," id. at 530, "that either [Etienne] or Pierre was going to
kill him," id. at 552. "Battistelli overheard [Etienne] and Pierre
discussing that Lemieux would 'get his some day.'" Id.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court then turned to "[t]he
night before the murder," explaining that "[Etienne] was upset
when he learned that Lemieux had defied him by going to his
apartment and had attempted to sexually assault Jennifer
- 12 -
Hannaford."7 Id. Etienne called "people in Manchester who might
know where Lemieux could be found. Gobis testified that [Etienne]
and Lemieux had argued on the telephone, and that Lemieux told her
that [Etienne had] 'threatened to kill him.'" Id.
The court next recounted Etienne's actions on the day of
the killing. Garcia testified that Etienne was "upset and angry"
that day and that he believed "[Etienne] had lied to Lemieux about
when [Etienne and his friends] would be arriving at Central Street
because he wanted to get there before Lemieux did."8 Id. Garcia
also testified that Etienne had called Gomez and asked him to go
to Central Street. Id.; id. at 531. Once at Central Street,
"[Etienne] retrieved his .9–millimeter Ruger pistol, Pierre
obtained a gun and Rivera gave Pierre bullets." Id. at 553; id.
at 531. Etienne and his friends "behaved as though they expected
a fight: Pierre told Jennifer Hannaford to take the children
upstairs shortly before the murder, and Roux was reluctant to go
outside to meet Lemieux." Id. at 553.
The court explained the events immediately preceding the
shooting. "Garcia testified that [Etienne] had been holding the
7 As the New Hampshire Supreme Court explained in the facts
section of its opinion, Etienne was not home in Manchester at the
time, because he had gone to Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut with
Pierre, Roux, and Garcia. Id. at 530.
8 The court earlier explained that Lemieux had told Pierre on
the phone that he was going to Central Street. Id. at 531.
- 13 -
gun in his left hand when Lemieux arrived, that he moved the gun
to his right hand, said something to Pierre in Haitian Creole, and
then moved behind Lemieux and shot him." Id. Johnson and Rivera
testified "that the defendant moved behind Lemieux, pointed the
gun at him, and then shot him." Id. The medical examiner testified
that Lemieux died immediately because the bullet severed his spinal
cord. Id.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court described the events
that occurred after the killing. Etienne wrote letters to Jette
and Amy Hannaford after his arrest "in which he told [them] that
he had known that Lemieux was going to be killed." Id.; id. at
532. Further, Detective John Patti testified, "without
objection," to statements made by Gomez to him during a February
2004 interview, in which Gomez narrated a conversation between
himself and Etienne where the men "discussed bringing Lemieux to
Foxwoods for a 'wood ride,' meaning they would murder Lemieux
during the ride, and that the defendant had said, 'It's a wrap,'
meaning that Lemieux was going to be killed."9 Id. at 553.
Etienne does not and cannot challenge the facts cited by
the New Hampshire Supreme Court in support of its conclusion and
Though Detective Patti testified to statements made by
9
Gomez, Etienne did not argue before the New Hampshire Supreme Court
or the district court, and does not argue before us, that the jury
would have weighed this testimony any differently had the proffer
letter been introduced at trial. Any such argument is waived.
See Castillo, 348 F.3d at 12.
- 14 -
recounted above. Against this record evidence, we see no basis to
conclude that the New Hampshire Supreme Court's no-prejudice
determination was an unreasonable application of Brady.
IV.
We affirm the district court's denial of habeas relief.
- 15 -