Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 34 (1992)

Page:   Index   Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

310

WRIGHT v. WEST

Souter, J., concurring in judgment

I agree that the evidence in this case was sufficient to convince a rational factfinder of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and I concur in the judgment of the Court.

Justice Souter, concurring in the judgment. While I could not disagree with the majority that sufficient evidence supported West's conviction, see, e. g., ante, at 295- 297, I do not think the Court should reach that issue. We have often said that when the principles first developed in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), pose a threshold question on federal habeas review, it is only after an answer favorable to the prisoner that a court should address the merits. See, e. g., Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U. S. 37, 40-41 (1990); Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 313, 329 (1989); Teague, supra, at 300 (plurality opinion). This habeas case begins with a Teague question, and its answer does not favor West. I would go no further.1

I

Under cases in the line of Teague v. Lane, supra, with two narrow exceptions not here relevant, federal courts conducting collateral review may not announce or apply a "new" rule for a state prisoner's benefit, Butler v. McKellar, 494 U. S. 407, 412 (1990); Teague, supra, at 310 (plurality opinion), a new rule being one that was "not 'dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final,' " Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U. S. 227, 234 (1990) (quoting Teague, supra, at 301 (plurality opinion)) (emphasis in original). Put differently, the new-rule enquiry asks "whether a state court considering [the prisoner's] claim at the time his conviction became final would have felt compelled by existing precedent to conclude that the rule [the prisoner] seeks was required by the Constitution." Saffle v. Parks, 494 U. S. 484, 488

1 Because my analysis ends the case for me without reaching historical questions, I do not take a position in the disagreement between Justice Thomas and Justice O'Connor.

Page:   Index   Previous  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007