ARNOLD R. LAGGE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
W. J. ESTELLE, JR., WARDEN OF MONTANA STATE PRISON, AND STATE OF MONTANA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was not constitutional error, and any potential error was harmless.
Appellant was denied production of a photograph shown to the victim before trial, which the victim initially could not identify. However, the victim l…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Lagge appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Lagge claims that his constitutional rights were violated at his state court trial for rape because his counsel’s request for the production of a photograph was denied. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We affirm.
The photograph in question was of appellant as he appeared ten to twelve years before the assault. The photograph was shown to the victim four to five hours after the attack and she denied that it was the man who raped her. However, the victim later positively identified appellant at a police line-up and in court during the trial.
On cross-examination, the victim stated that she had been shown the picture and had denied that it was the person who had assaulted her. The court refused to require production of the picture at that time. On rebuttal, the prosecution sought to introduce the picture but the court sustained defense counsel’s objection to its admission.
We can find no constitutional error. Appellant’s authorities are readily distinguishable. Cf. Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414, 73 S.Ct. 369, 97 L. Ed. 447 (1953).
Even if error was present it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury was aware of the photograph and that the victim could not identify appellant from it. Accord, Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
In any event, defense counsel’s objection to the introduction of the photograph constituted a waiver of the claimed right. Cf. Kuhl v. United States, 370 F. 2d 20, 25, 26 (9th Cir. 1966) en banc.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967)
- Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414 (U.S. 1953)
- Kuhl v. United States, 370 F.2d 20 (9th Cir. 1966)