Carter v. Uhler

Background

Steven Carter was convicted in state court of two counts of second-degree murder and received consecutive sentences of 25 years to life. The conviction arose from the 1986 killing of a woman in St. Nicholas Park. DNA testing in 2010 and 2011 found a male profile in evidence from the victim that matched Carter’s DNA. Carter was interviewed in 2011 while incarcerated on unrelated charges and was later indicted.

Before trial, Carter argued that the 25-year delay before his indictment violated due process and that prosecutors had improperly delayed disclosing a two-page statement from the victim’s sister. The statement identified the victim’s boyfriend as someone who had argued with the victim and had motive and opportunity to kill her. The sister died before trial. The trial court allowed agreed-upon portions of her statement to be read to the jury.

Carter also sought to introduce statements by the victim’s boyfriend concerning the victim’s prostitution and drug use. The trial court excluded those statements under New York’s rape-shield law and hearsay rules. The state appellate court rejected Carter’s challenges, and the New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.

Federal Habeas Petition and Standard of Review

Carter filed a federal petition challenging his conviction. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a federal court may grant relief only if the state court’s decision was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court law, or was based on an unreasonable factual determination. The federal court reviewed Carter’s objections to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s Report and Recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Carter’s challenge to the exclusion of the boyfriend’s statement. Carter did not identify clearly established federal law requiring admission of the statement despite the hearsay and rape-shield rules. The court also concluded that Carter had not explained how evidence that the victim was a prostitute would establish that his sexual contact with her was consensual or show that someone else killed her. The state appellate court’s conclusion that the exclusion was harmless was therefore binding under the federal habeas standard.

The court also rejected Carter’s challenge to the pre-indictment delay. It explained that such a delay violates due process only when the defendant shows actual, definite—not speculative—prejudice and unjustifiable government conduct. Carter offered only an assertion of probable prejudice and did not identify unjustifiable conduct. The court further noted that the sister’s statement was presented to the jury and that Carter’s attorney argued that the sexual contact was consensual.

Finally, the court rejected Carter’s claim that the delayed disclosure of the sister’s statement required dismissal of the indictment. The court concluded that Carter received the statement in time to use it effectively at trial and that disclosure before trial was not required under the governing law.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick overruled Carter’s objections, adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, and denied the petition. The court denied a certificate of appealability because Carter had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The clerk was directed to close the case.