## Facts

- Dino Wayne Kyzar and Leroy Cropper were inmates in an Arizona state prison.
- In 1997, correctional officers confiscated contraband from Cropper, and Cropper became angry and cursed at staff.
- Cropper later told another inmate, Eugene Long, about the confrontation and asked Long to summon Kyzar to Cropper’s cell.
- When Kyzar arrived, Cropper told him he wanted “the good one,” prison slang for a knife or shank, and made a stabbing motion.
- Kyzar asked Cropper if he was sure and asked how much time Cropper had left on his sentence; Cropper replied it did not matter because he was a career criminal.
- After that exchange, Kyzar recruited another inmate, Joshua Brice, to help locate a shank.
- A hidden knife was located; Long retrieved it and returned to his cell.
- Kyzar then had another inmate check with Long about whether the “preparations” had been taken care of, and the response conveyed back was that they had.
- Cropper obtained the knife from Long and used it to stab and kill a correctional officer on March 7, 1997.
- After the killing, the prison locked down. Kyzar and Brice were detained outside and saw Cropper and Long being escorted away in restraints while guards yelled and cried.
- Kyzar told Brice—who knew the knife had been given to Cropper—to keep his mouth shut.
- Arizona charged Kyzar with conspiring with Cropper and others to commit a deadly or dangerous assault by a prisoner (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1206). A jury convicted him.
- Kyzar lost in state court and later sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming the evidence was constitutionally insufficient under *Jackson v. Virginia*.
- After an earlier federal appeal, the case returned to the district court on a limited remand to decide the *Jackson* sufficiency claim. The district court denied relief, and Kyzar appealed again.

## Issues

1. Whether, under AEDPA, the Arizona courts unreasonably applied *Jackson v. Virginia* in concluding that the trial evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Kyzar joined a conspiracy to commit a deadly or dangerous assault by a prisoner.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Kyzar’s § 2254 petition.
- The court held that the state court’s rejection of the *Jackson* sufficiency claim was not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
- The court concluded that a rational jury could infer a conspiratorial agreement and Kyzar’s knowing participation from (1) Cropper’s request for “the good one” with a stabbing gesture, (2) Kyzar’s questions showing awareness of the planned seriousness of the act, (3) Kyzar’s role in arranging for a shank to be located and obtained through other inmates, and (4) Kyzar’s post-killing instruction to keep quiet.

## Legal Principles

- Under *Jackson v. Virginia*, evidence is sufficient if, viewing it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- When the record supports conflicting inferences, a reviewing court presumes the jury resolved conflicts in favor of the prosecution and defers to that resolution.
- In federal habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the question is not whether the federal court would find the evidence sufficient in the first instance, but whether the state court’s application of *Jackson* was objectively unreasonable.
- Credibility determinations are generally for the jury; a habeas court does not reweigh witness credibility under *Jackson*.
- A conspiracy may be proven through circumstantial evidence, including coordinated conduct furthering an unlawful objective and post-offense statements supporting an inference of guilty knowledge.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that, applying AEDPA deference to the Arizona courts and the deferential sufficiency standard of *Jackson v. Virginia*, the evidence permitted a rational jury to find that Kyzar knowingly joined an agreement to help arm Cropper for a deadly assault, so Kyzar was not entitled to federal habeas relief and the denial of his petition was affirmed.


Kyzar v. Ryan, 780 F.3d 940 (2015)