## Facts

- Robert Louis Goldman, a Michigan state prisoner, was convicted in Detroit Recorder’s Court of breaking and entering a real estate office with intent to commit larceny therein (MCLA 750.110) and was sentenced to five to ten years’ imprisonment.
- Around 5:00 a.m., police received a call that a breaking and entering of a real estate office was in progress.
- A responding officer arrived and saw that the real estate office door had been forced open and saw Goldman exit the office and run.
- A private citizen apprehended Goldman and returned him to the scene; an officer observed white plaster dust on Goldman’s clothes.
- Another officer found a hole in an interior wall of the real estate office adjacent to a bar next door, along with a sledgehammer, crowbar, screwdriver, and flashlight near the hole.
- Nothing had been stolen from either the real estate office or the adjacent bar (possibly due to the police arrival).
- At trial, Goldman testified he was never in the building, claimed he had been arrested while running near the building, and denied running from police.
- The prosecution impeached Goldman by reading from a prior signed statement. The statement included the wording that he was arrested “because I ran from by the building . . . .” but it was read to the jury as “because I ran from the building . . . .”
- The statement was not admitted into evidence, and no judicial finding of voluntariness was made.
- Goldman sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing (1) the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to prove intent to commit larceny in the real estate office (as opposed to intent to steal from the adjacent bar), and (2) the impeachment use of his statement violated the Constitution.
- The district court dismissed the petition based on procedural default principles drawn from *Wainwright v. Sykes*; Goldman appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial evidence was constitutionally sufficient under *Jackson v. Virginia* to permit a rational jury to find that Goldman intended to commit larceny in the real estate office.
2. Whether Goldman’s claim challenging the prosecution’s impeachment use of his prior statement was barred on federal habeas review by procedural default under *Wainwright v. Sykes* because trial counsel did not object, and Goldman failed to show cause and actual prejudice.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Goldman’s habeas petition.
- The court held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient under *Jackson v. Virginia* to support a finding of intent to commit larceny in the real estate office.
- The court held that Goldman’s challenge to the impeachment use of his prior statement was procedurally barred under *Wainwright v. Sykes* because the lack of a contemporaneous objection reflected a tactical choice, which did not establish “cause” excusing the default.

## Legal Principles

- A federal habeas court reviews a due process sufficiency claim under *Jackson v. Virginia* by asking whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found each essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Intent to commit larceny may be proven by circumstantial evidence, and a jury may draw reasonable inferences from conduct such as forced entry, flight, physical traces linking a defendant to the scene, and the presence of burglary tools.
- Under *Wainwright v. Sykes*, a claim defaulted under an adequate and independent state procedural rule (such as a contemporaneous-objection requirement) is generally barred on federal habeas review unless the petitioner shows both cause for the default and actual prejudice.
- A deliberate, tactical decision by trial counsel not to object ordinarily does not establish “cause” sufficient to excuse a procedural default on federal habeas review.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit left Goldman’s conviction intact, concluding that the circumstantial evidence permitted a rational jury to find that he broke into the real estate office intending to steal there, and that his separate challenge to impeachment with a prior statement could not be reviewed in federal habeas because counsel’s tactical failure to object triggered a procedural bar under *Wainwright v. Sykes* without a showing of cause and actual prejudice.


Goldman v. Anderson, 625 F.2d 135 (1980)