Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713 (1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713 (1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
205 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Fichera (nh, 2006-06-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Fichera
N.H. · 2006 · confidence medium
“It has long been recognized in this State that even the condition of insanity may be proved by lay witnesses,” Hudson, 119 N.H. at 966 , and “lay testimony has ... been held to satisfy federal constitutional standards.” Id. at 966-67 (citing Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713, 714-15 (1979) (per curiam)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Stacy v. Love
M.D. Tenn. · 1981 · confidence medium
Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713, 714 , 99 S.Ct. 3088, 3089 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865, 868 (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) M. W. Holloway v. Clay E. McElroy Warden
5th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Similarly, in Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713 , 99 S.Ct. 3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 *639 (1979) (per curiam), the Court granted certiorari to consider a decision of the Seventh Circuit in which the Thompson standard had been used.
cited Cited "see" Pop v. Yarborough
C.D. Cal. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
examined Cited "see" Amunson v. State (6×)
Tex. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Turner v. McKaskle, 721 F.2d 999, 1003 (5th Cir.1983) (citing Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713 , 99 S.Ct. 3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979) (per curiam)).
examined Cited "see" Jeffrey D. Tilley v. Norris McMackin (3×)
6th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713 , 99 S.Ct. 3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979).
examined Cited "see" Davasher v. State (4×)
Ark. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713 , (1979); Avery v. State, supra. We have held that insanity is an affirmative defense to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
examined Cited "see" Wilcox v. Ford (3×)
M.D. Ga. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713, 714-15 , 99 S.Ct. 3088, 3089-90 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979) (per curiam); Turner v. McKaskle, 721 F.2d 999, 1003 (5th Cir.1983); Harris v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 904, 906 (5th Cir.1981) (Unit A).
examined Cited "see" Swanger, Glenn R. v. Zimmerman, Charles H. Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania, District Attorney of Lebanon County (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. Duckworth, 581 F.2d 639, 642-43 (7th Cir.1978), aff'd, 443 U.S. 713 , 99 S.Ct. 3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979) (“obligue” references to claims contained in a letter to state court did not constitute fair presentation of claims).
examined Cited "see" United States ex rel. Brown v. McGinnis (3×)
N.D. Ill. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. Duckworth, 581 F.2d 639, 644 (7th Cir.1978), aff'd, 443 U.S. 713 , 99 S.Ct. 3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979); U.S. ex rel.
examined Cited "see" Harvey Wayne Turner v. Dan v. McKaskle Acting Director, Texas Department of Corrections (6×)
5th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713 , 99 S.Ct. 3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979) (per curiam); Harris v. Blackburn, 646 F.2d 904, 907 (5th Cir.1981).
cited Cited "see" State v. Novosel
N.H. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Moore v. Duckworth supra. The defendant’s evidence *186 consisted of testimony from experts who agreed that the defendant was insane, but who could not agree as to the proper diagnosis.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Group v. Robinson (3×)
N.D. Ohio · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
This Court thus limits its review to “determining whether the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of the petitioner that it compelled a verdict in his or her favor.” Thompson v. Bock, 215 Fed.Appx. 431, 436 (6th Cir.2007); see also Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713, 714-15 , 99 S.Ct. 3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979) (“The Court of Appeals properly deferred to the Indiana law governing proof of sanity” in determining a sufficiency-of-the-evidenee claim.).
examined Cited "see, e.g." State v. Standridge (3×)
La. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713 , 99 S.Ct. 3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Pickron v. Jacobs (3×)
E.D. Pa. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713, 714-15 , 99 S.Ct. 3088, 3089-90 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Cornell Fuller v. Charles E. Anderson (6×)
6th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713 , 99 S.Ct. 3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979); Brewer v. Overberg, 624 F.2d 51 (6th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1085 , 101 S.Ct. 873 , 66 L.Ed.2d 810 (1981); Davis v. Campbell, 608 F.2d 317 (8th Cir. 1979).
Moore
v.
Duckworth, Warden
78-5795.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jul 2, 1979.
443 U.S. 713
Per Curiam.
Cited by 71 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Upon a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, the petitioner was found guilty by an Indiana jury of murder in the second degree. The Indiana Supreme Court upon direct appeal affirmed the conviction. Moore v. State, 260 Ind. 154, 293 N. E. 2d 28 (1973). The petitioner then sought a writ of habeas corpus in a Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2254. He claimed, inter alia, that he had been denied due process of law because he had been convicted upon evidence allegedly insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable[*714] doubt that he was sane at the time the victim was killed. * The District Court denied the writ, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 581 F. 2d 639 (1978).

In holding that the District Court had been correct in rejecting the petitioner’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, the Court of Appeals stated that such a challenge presents a federal due process issue “only where a state court conviction is totally devoid of evi-dentiary support.” Id., at 642. The petitioner claims that this was error, and he urges that under In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), a state prisoner is entitled to a determination whether the record evidence could support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree. Jackson v. Virginia, ante, p. 307. Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this ease we conclude that a remand for further consideration in light of Jackson v. Virginia would be inappropriate.

The petitioner has contended that the prosecution failed to meet its burden because it relied upon lay witnesses to prove sanity without providing any expert testimony to rebut his expert opinion testimony. But, as the Court of Appeals noted, under Indiana law sanity may be established by either expert or lay testimony. The state appellate court, in an opinion thoroughly discussing the record evidence and the petitioner’s sufficiency challenge, concluded that the lay evidence in this case could have been credited by the jury, and it held that the State’s evidence was fully sufficient to support a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner was sane at the time of the killing.

The Court of Appeals properly deferred to the Indiana law governing proof of sanity. Although that court applied an improper legal standard when it considered the petitioner’s[*715] due process claim, it is clear from its opinion that the essence of that challenge concerned the rule of state law that permits the State to rely on lay proof of sanity. It is likewise clear from the record that under the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, the evidence in support of this conviction was constitutionally adequate.

Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

*

The District Court found, and the Court of Appeals' agreed, that the petitioner had failed to exhaust his available state remedies on all but his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The petitioner takes issue with this ruling, but we are satisfied that it was correct.