Blair v. Kentucky; And Carpenter Et Al. v. Kentucky

1980-11-03

Headline: Denies review of Kentucky shotgun-shooting convictions, leaving a state court’s post-trial change in procedural rule intact despite a Justice’s dissent arguing it blocks federal review

Holding: The Court denied the petitions and refused to review the Kentucky Supreme Court’s reinstatement of the convictions, leaving the state court’s procedural ruling in place while one Justice dissented.

Real World Impact:

Leaves reinstated convictions in state court, blocking immediate Supreme Court review.
Forces defendants to seek federal habeas review instead of direct Supreme Court relief.
Raises questions about using new state procedural rules to bar constitutional claims.

Topics: criminal convictions, insufficient evidence, state procedural rules, federal review, habeas corpus

Summary

Background

Three men—Richard Carpenter, Stephen Borders, and Jerome Blair—were convicted in Kentucky for first-degree wanton endangerment and third-degree criminal mischief after allegedly firing a shotgun at businesses and cars, injuring one person and damaging property. At trial they moved for a directed verdict at the close of the Commonwealth’s case and later moved for a new trial, both arguing the evidence was insufficient; they did not renew the directed-verdict motion at the close of all evidence. An intermediate Kentucky court set aside the convictions, the Kentucky Supreme Court initially affirmed for Carpenter and Borders and reversed as to Blair, and after the Commonwealth sought rehearing the state court reversed itself and reinstated the convictions by applying a procedural rule announced in Kimbrough eight months after the trials.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Kentucky Supreme Court’s procedural ruling—that a defendant must move for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence to preserve an insufficiency claim—is an independent and adequate state ground that prevents this Court from reviewing the federal claim that the evidence was insufficient. Justice Brennan (joined by Justice Marshall) argued that Kimbrough was new law announced after the trials, so petitioners could not have anticipated it, and therefore the state rule should not bar federal review. Brennan relied on prior Kentucky decisions that accepted motions at the close of the Commonwealth’s case and noted that the state courts had explicitly found no relevant evidence linking Carpenter and Borders to the crimes. He also observed that convictions struck under the older “no evidence” test would fail under the federal insufficiency standard announced in Jackson v. Virginia.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied review, the Kentucky Supreme Court’s reinstatement of the convictions stands and petitioners must pursue other remedies, like federal habeas review. Brennan warned that forcing defendants to seek habeas relief is wasteful where the issues are purely legal and no new hearing is required, and that allowing newly announced state procedural rules to cut off federal review can unfairly block constitutional claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan dissented and was joined by Justice Marshall; he would have granted review, concluding the state procedural ground was likely inadequate to bar consideration of the petitioners’ federal insufficiency claims.