(HC) Smith v. Espinoza, 2:18-cv-02877-DJC-AC

Three-month-old Tyrese was found unresponsive in July 2014; medical evidence showed recent blunt-force head trauma, hematoma, multiple rib fractures in different healing stages, neck abrasions, and brain injury causing brain death.
Parents Ashleigh Smith and Terry Scott gave inconsistent accounts, displayed unusual apathy, and failed to account for the injuries; Scott made recorded statements admitting abuse and later claiming he took the blame to free Smith.
Evidence included surveillance-enhanced audio, admissions by Scott, observations by medical staff and family of prior signs of injury, and prior child-abuse allegations involving Smith’s older daughter (including a broken leg and neck scratches).
At trial Smith and Scott were convicted of second-degree murder and assault causing death of a child (Cal. Penal Code § 273ab); the Court of Appeal later reversed the murder conviction but affirmed the assault conviction; state supreme court denied review.
Smith filed a federal habeas petition raising three claims: (1) insufficient evidence for murder (now moot), (2) insufficient evidence for assault causing death, and (3) improper admission of prior-child-abuse evidence; the magistrate judge recommended denial under AEDPA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree murder	Smith argued evidence was insufficient to prove murder	State relied on trial record; appeal already reversed murder conviction	Moot — murder conviction vacated on appeal, claim dismissed as moot
Sufficiency of evidence for assault causing death (§ 273ab)	Smith argued no direct proof she caused or knew of fatal abuse; due process violated	State argued circumstantial evidence (demeanor, inconsistent stories, Scott’s admissions, prior abuse, medical evidence) permitted inference of guilt or complicity	Denied — Court of Appeal’s upholding of conviction was not an unreasonable application of Jackson standard
Admission of prior-child-abuse evidence (Evid. Code § 1109)	Smith argued prior-act evidence was prejudicial and CPS had not found abuse	State argued evidence admissible under § 1109 and trial court did not abuse discretion under state law	Denied — no Supreme Court precedent establishes admission of such propensity evidence violates due process, so AEDPA bars relief

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (sets standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U.S. 1 (reinforces deference under Jackson and AEDPA)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference when state court decides on merits)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (federal review limited to state-court record under § 2254(d))
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (federal habeas not available for state-law evidentiary errors unless trial was fundamentally unfair)
Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (look-through rule to last reasoned state decision)
Bradshaw v. Richey, 546 U.S. 74 (federal courts bound by state courts’ interpretation of state law)
Wright v. Van Patten, 552 U.S. 120 (AEDPA requires clearly established Supreme Court holdings for federal relief on novel due process theories)
Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (mootness where no live controversy remains)