Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 437 (1969)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations

Annotation

Primary Holding

A state court must address and resolve any federal constitutional issues before a federal court can intervene in the matter.

Facts

Louisiana law required that confessions by defendants should be heard in their entirety. Cardinale's confession to a brutal murder was used in its entirety to convict him, and the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. Cardinale did not raise a federal question at trial, but he later sought a federal review of the murder conviction on the basis that sections of the confession were prejudicial and irrelevant.

Opinions

Majority

  • Byron Raymond White (Author)
  • Earl Warren
  • John Marshall Harlan II
  • William Joseph Brennan, Jr.
  • Potter Stewart
  • Thurgood Marshall

State courts should have an opportunity to review their own laws and interpret them in an effort to reconcile them with any potential constitutional conflicts. Failing to raise a constitutional challenge in the lower court results in an unclear record. Federal courts may not review the issue because the defendant failed to raise the constitutional issue in the state court.

Concurrence

  • Hugo Lafayette Black (Author)
  • William Orville Douglas
  • Abe Fortas

The lower court erred in granting the writ, so it was properly dismissed.

Case Commentary

There is a difference between a novel claim, which cannot be made at the appellate level, and a new argument, which can be. The Supreme Court also has the power to review the issue of whether a party actually presented a federal question at the state level.

U.S. Supreme Court

Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 437 (1969)

Cardinale v. Louisiana

No. 76

Argued February 24, 1969

Decided April 1, 1969

394 U.S. 437

Syllabus

Since petitioner's contention that a Louisiana statute requiring that confessions be admitted into evidence in their entirety notwithstanding their inclusion of irrelevant and prejudicial material is unconstitutional -- the sole federal question argued in this Court -- was not raised, preserved, or passed on in the state courts, the writ of certiorari is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, as this Court will not decide federal questions raised here for the first time on review of state court decisions. Pp. 394 U. S. 438-439.

251 La. 827, 206 So.2d 510, certiorari dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

U.S. Supreme Court

Cardinale v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 437 (1969)

Cardinale v. Louisiana

No. 76

Argued February 24, 1969

Decided April 1, 1969

394 U.S. 437

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA

Syllabus

Since petitioner's contention that a Louisiana statute requiring that confessions be admitted into evidence in their entirety notwithstanding their inclusion of irrelevant and prejudicial material is unconstitutional -- the sole federal question argued in this Court -- was not raised, preserved, or passed on in the state courts, the writ of certiorari is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, as this Court will not decide federal questions raised here for the first time on review of state court decisions. Pp. 394 U. S. 438-439.

251 La. 827, 206 So.2d 510, certiorari dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner brutally murdered a woman near New Orleans, and then fled the State. He had been seen with his victim, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. In the course of his flight, petitioner came to Tucson, Arizona, where he decided to surrender. He flagged down a police car and, after an interruption by the police to warn him that he need not speak, that his speech might be used against him, and that he had a right to contact an attorney, was taken to the station house, where he poured out a confession. His confession was introduced in its entirety in the subsequent trial for murder in which petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death.

Page 394 U. S. 438

Petitioner does not now contend that his confession was involuntary or that his admission of guilt to the Tucson police was inadmissible in evidence. He objects solely to the admission of those parts of his confession which he argues were both irrelevant and prejudicial in his trial for murder. A Louisiana statute requires that confessions must be admitted in their entirety, La.Rev.Stat. § 15:450, and petitioner contends that this is unconstitutional.

Although certiorari was granted to consider this question, the fact emerged in oral argument that the sole federal question argued here had never been raised, preserved, or passed upon in the state courts below. It was very early established that the Court will not decide federal constitutional issues raised here for the first time on review of state court decisions. In Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet. 368 (1836), Justice Story reviewed the earlier cases commencing with Owings v. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch 344 (1809), and came to the conclusion that the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20, § 25, 1 Stat. 85, vested this Court with no jurisdiction unless a federal question was raised and decided in the state court below. "If both of these do not appear on the record, the appellate jurisdiction fails." 35 U. S. 10 Pet. 368, 35 U. S. 391. The Court has consistently refused to decide federal constitutional issues raised here for the first time on review of state court decisions both before the Crowell opinion, Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311, 17 U. S. 315 (1819), and since, e.g., Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Oklahoma Retail Grocers Assn., Inc., 360 U. S. 334, 360 U. S. 342, n. 7 (1959); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Duel, 324 U. S. 154, 324 U. S. 160-163 (1945); McGoldrick v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 309 U. S. 430, 309 U. S. 434-435 (1940); Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 274 U. S. 362-363 (1927); Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193, 173 U. S. 197-201 (1899); Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590 (1875).

Page 394 U. S. 439

In addition to the question of jurisdiction arising under the statute controlling our power to review final judgments of state courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1257, there are sound reasons for this. Questions not raised below are those on which the record is very likely to be inadequate, since it certainly was not compiled with those questions in mind. And, in a federal system, it is important that state courts be given the first opportunity to consider the applicability of state statutes in light of constitutional challenge, since the statutes may be construed in a way which saves their constitutionality. Or the issue may be blocked by an adequate state ground. Even though States are not free to avoid constitutional issues on inadequate state grounds, O'Connor v. Ohio, 385 U. S. 92 (1966), they should be given the first opportunity to consider them.

In view of the petitioner's admitted failure to raise the issue he presents here in any way below, the failure of the state court to pass on this issue, the desirability of giving the State the first opportunity to apply its statute on an adequate record, and the fact that a federal habeas remedy may remain if no state procedure for raising the issue is available to petitioner, the writ is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and MR JUSTICE FORTAS concur in the dismissal of the writ, believing it to have been improvidently granted.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.