565 F. App'x 644
9th Cir.2014Background
- Albert Medina appeals a district court denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
- The district court’s review of the petition was de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- The district court admitted Ryer’s statements to Dorothy Golden; Medina challenged Confrontation Clause implications.
- Ryer’s statements to nurse Marian Adams were also admitted, with Medina challenging Confrontation Clause implications and harmlessness.
- The court held Ryer’s statements to Golden were non-testimonial and thus not Confrontation Clause violation, and they were admissible under Nevada’s excited-utterance hearsay exception.
- The court found the Adams statements harmless and sufficient other evidence supported five counts of sexual assault, so the conviction stood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause impact of Ryer statements | Medina argues admission violated Confrontation Clause. | State court decisions apply Confrontation Clause only to testimonial statements; statements here were non-testimonial or not clearly prohibited. | Waiver; even if not waived, no Confrontation Clause violation. |
| Harmlessness of Adams statements | Adams statements were improperly admitted and could affect verdict. | Adams testimony is cumulative and harmless given Golden testimony and corroborating evidence. | Harmless error; not reversible. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for five counts | Evidence including Ryer’s statements to Golden suffices to sustain convictions. | All admissible and otherwise admitted evidence should be considered; the verdict supported by multiple cues. | Sufficient evidence supports five counts of sexual assault. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (distinguishes testimonial from non-testimonial statements)
- Delgadillo v. Woodford, 527 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2008) (non-testimonial statements fall outside Confrontation Clause protection)
- Brown v. Ornoski, 503 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of habeas corpus determinations)
- Welchel v. Washington, 232 F.3d 1197 (9th Cir. 2000) (harmless-error considerations in habeas review)
- Laboa v. Calderon, 224 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2000) (harmless-error and sufficiency considerations in appellate review)
- Merolillo v. Yates, 663 F.3d 444 (9th Cir. 2011) (factors for evaluating harmless error on appeal)
- McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (evidence standards when assessing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Huber, 772 F.2d 585 (9th Cir. 1985) (court may consider evidence admitted in violation of Confrontation Clause for sufficiency)
- Deeds v. State, 626 P.2d 271 (Nev. 1981) (victim’s own statements can sustain conviction under Nevada law)
- Henry v. United States, 560 F.2d 963 (9th Cir. 1977) (relevance of corroboration and corroborating evidence in sexual assault cases)