Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 F.3d 1228

Docket No. 93-2943.

Offutt v. Nix

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: January 11, 1994. Filed: January 25, 1994.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1994-01-11

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Thornton v. Hobbs

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1994-01-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2014

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

80199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action.

Before BOWMAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT and ROSS, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

Lloyd Offutt was convicted of first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, and second-degree sexual assault in Scott County, Iowa, in 1985. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988), which the District Court1 denied. On appeal, Offutt argues he was entitled to habeas relief because the jury instructions violated his due process rights, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve the alleged error. Offutt also contends it was constitutional error for the court to admit evidence of a prior similar conviction to impeach Offutt, and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this evidentiary issue as a constitutional error.

¶2

The claims that the jury instructions were unconstitutional and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a constitutional challenge to the admission of prior conviction impeachment evidence were not raised in Offutt's petition before the District Court and therefore are not properly before us. We agree with the District Court that Offutt's claim of constitutional error in the admission of the impeachment evidence is procedurally barred. Finally, we reject Offutt's argument that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the allegedly unconstitutional jury instructions, and agree with the District Court's conclusion that the instructions were proper.

¶3

An opinion in this case would have no precedential value, so we summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Mark W. Bennett, Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa

/16/f3d/1228 · .json · Public domain