As the Supreme Court has explained, "Obviously there are instances in which `the ultimate question for disposition'will be the same despite variations in the legal theory or factual allegations urged in its support. "

The doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies demands only that the state courts first be presented with an opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts bearing upon the constitutional claim of the petitioner.

It compared a "challenge to a confession predicated upon psychological as well as physical coercion," in which the " `ultimate question for disposition'will be the same "with a challenge to the validity of an indictment and a claim of unconstitutional discrimination based on that indictment, which were not substantial equivalents. Id

As an example, the court stated that the exhaustion requirement would be met in a case where a state defendant made an involuntary confession claim in the state courts based on physical coercion, but argued in federal court that coercion was shown by the totality of the circumstances including psychological coercion. See id

To satisfy exhaustion, the petitioner needed only present to the state court the material facts as well as the claim that the confession had been involuntary. Id

After the petitioner prevailed in the district court, the state argued on appeal that he had failed to exhaust his remedies in the state courts because his theory there was based on physical coercion, while in the federal courts he stressed psychological coercion.

[CITATION] Duncan v. Henry