James Lee Moore v. Hoyt Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary

Ninth Circuit

James Lee Moore v. Hoyt Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary

612 F.2d 466, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21045

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 28, 1980

Docket78-3581

StatusPublished

This text of 612 F.2d 466 (James Lee Moore v. Hoyt Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James Lee Moore v. Hoyt Cupp, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, 612 F.2d 466, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21045 (9th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

*467 PER CURIAM.

Moore appeals from the denial of his ha-beas corpus petition. He urges that his conviction for robbery in the state court was invalid because state authorities destroyed or lost a tape recording of his preliminary hearing.

Moore and a codefendant were charged in state court with second degree robbery. The charges were dismissed after a preliminary hearing. Although the proceedings were not transcribed, the hearing was tape recorded. A copy of the tape was given to the state and to Moore’s counsel.

The state then obtained an indictment from a state grand jury. Moore’s new counsel asked both the state and Moore’s prior counsel for a copy of the tape of the preliminary hearing. He was informed by both that the tapes had either been lost or destroyed. Moore was later convicted.

We affirm the judgment of the district court denying Moore’s habeas petition on the authority of United States v. Loud Hawk, et al. (CA9, August 7, 1979) (Slip Opinion 2857). The law in Loud Hawk is fundamentally sound and applies even though Loud Hawk involved a federal rather than a state proceeding. Furthermore, contrary to appellant’s assertions, his claim does not rise to constitutional dimensions. The unfairness caused by loss or destruction of evidence rarely rises to the level of making the proceeding “a spectacle or trial by ordeal.” Loud Hawk Slip op. at 2874 (Kennedy, J., concurring}. This is not one of those instances.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*467 PER CURIAM.

Moore appeals from the denial of his ha-beas corpus petition. He urges that his conviction for robbery in the state court was invalid because state authorities destroyed or lost a tape recording of his preliminary hearing.

Moore and a codefendant were charged in state court with second degree robbery. The charges were dismissed after a preliminary hearing. Although the proceedings were not transcribed, the hearing was tape recorded. A copy of the tape was given to the state and to Moore’s counsel.

The state then obtained an indictment from a state grand jury. Moore’s new counsel asked both the state and Moore’s prior counsel for a copy of the tape of the preliminary hearing. He was informed by both that the tapes had either been lost or destroyed. Moore was later convicted.

We affirm the judgment of the district court denying Moore’s habeas petition on the authority of United States v. Loud Hawk, et al. (CA9, August 7, 1979) (Slip Opinion 2857). The law in Loud Hawk is fundamentally sound and applies even though Loud Hawk involved a federal rather than a state proceeding. Furthermore, contrary to appellant’s assertions, his claim does not rise to constitutional dimensions. The unfairness caused by loss or destruction of evidence rarely rises to the level of making the proceeding “a spectacle or trial by ordeal.” Loud Hawk Slip op. at 2874 (Kennedy, J., concurring}. This is not one of those instances.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

612 F.2d 466, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 21045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-lee-moore-v-hoyt-cupp-superintendent-oregon-state-penitentiary-ca9-1980.