(HC) Shoals v. Beard, 1:13-cv-01178

Petitioner Bobby Shoals was convicted in Kings County, California, of multiple sexual-offense and assault charges based on a late-night attack on his ex-girlfriend (C.B.); injuries included bruises, a ruptured eardrum, and anal lacerations.
Trial evidence: C.B.’s testimony, photographs of injuries, DNA linking Shoals, and Shoals’ jail calls to C.B. urging her not to testify.
Shoals testified that the encounter was mutual/consensual after a fight and admitted some physical contact (slap, belt strike) but denied rape.
On appeal, Shoals argued (1) the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it must be unanimous as to which specific assault constituted the great-bodily-injury assault (Count VIII), and (2) the court improperly gave CALCRIM No. 1190 (one-witness suffices for sexual-assault convictions).
The California Fifth DCA affirmed, the California Supreme Court denied review, and Shoals filed a federal habeas petition raising the two instructional errors.
The federal district court denied the petition on the merits and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Unanimity instruction for Count VIII (assault likely to cause great bodily injury)	Trial court erred by not instructing jurors they must unanimously agree which specific assault (punch to ear/cheek or belt strike) supported the charge	No federal right to unanimity on underlying theory in non‑capital cases; evidence showed a single, continuous violent episode and same defense applied	Denied — omission not a due‑process error under federal law; failure harmless given continuous course of conduct and overwhelming evidence
Use of CALCRIM No. 1190 (complaining witness alone can convict in sex cases)	Instruction reduced prosecution’s burden of proof by implying a single witness suffices without regard to reasonable doubt	CALCRIM 1190 (with CALCRIM 301) correctly states California law; state precedent (Gammage) permits both instructions and they do not dilute reasonable‑doubt standard	Denied — claim raises state‑law interpretation not cognizable on federal habeas; in any event, no reasonable likelihood jury applied instructions to violate due process

Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference; unreasonable‑application standard)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standards for federal habeas review)
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (application of §2254(d) standards)
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991) (state law instructional errors generally not cognizable on federal habeas)
Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145 (1977) (due process requires instructional errors to so infect trial that conviction is fundamentally unfair)
Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999) (no federal requirement that jurors agree on same set of facts underlying a conviction)
Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991) (plurality: differing theories can support conviction in noncapital cases)
Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972) (no federal right to unanimous jury verdict in noncapital cases)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless‑error standard for federal habeas)
Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225 (2000) (jurors presumed to follow instructions)