Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00963/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00963-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT GEORGE BRIGANCE, 2:03-cv-0963-GEB-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding with counsel, brings this petition for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.

On August 30, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Petitioner has

filed objections to the findings and recommendations, in which he argues that admission of

statements identified in the findings and recommendations violated his federal due-process

rights. “[T]he admission of evidence in state court is not subject to federal habeas review unless

the admission of the testimony was arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.” Drayden v. White, 232

Case 2:03-cv-00963-GEB-CMK Document 25 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

F.3d 704, 710 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating also that “[t]he improper admission of evidence does not

violate the Due Process Clause unless it is clearly prejudicial and rendered the trial

fundamentally unfair”) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 

In this case, the California Court of Appeal considered the challenged statements,

noting that at a pretrial hearing the trial court “stated it would give a limiting instruction at the

appropriate times at counsel’s request.” (Petition Ex. J at 23, May 8, 2003.) The California

Court of Appeal stated: 

At several points during trial, the court admonished the jury

that certain testimony concerning statements Whitman made about

defendant’s background or conduct was admitted for the limited

purpose of showing her state of mind toward defendant, and that it

was not to consider such testimony for the truth of the facts

contained in her statements.

. . . .

Defendant also says Whitman’s statements were

inadmissible under Evidence Code section 1250 because they

lacked reliability. Under Evidence Code section 1250, subdivision

(a), the admission of hearsay evidence under the state of mind

exception is “[s]ubject to Section 1252,” which states: “Evidence

of a statement is inadmissible under this article if the statement was

made under circumstances such as to indicate its lack of

trustworthiness.” (Evid. Code § 1252.)

However, defendant did not expressly object on the basis of

Evidence Code section 1252 at the trial court, and, thus, he has

waived this claim on appeal. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a).) Even

if he had raised Evidence Code section 1252, the record does not

show that the circumstances under which the statements were made

-- Whitman confiding in close friends and family -- indicated a lack

of trustworthiness.

Moreover, it was proper for the trial court to admit some of

Whitman’s statements with the admonishment that they should not

be considered for their truth. The evidence was relevant as

circumstantial evidence of Whitman’s state of mind, whether the

facts set forth in those statements were true or not. 

. . . .

To the extent defendant complains that some of Whitman’s

remarks about defendant might have been admitted without the

limiting instruction, it was incumbent on defendant to request that

instruction at the proper times during trial. Any failure by him to

do so waived the point on appeal.

That leaves the defendant’s claim based on Evidence Code

Case 2:03-cv-00963-GEB-CMK Document 25 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

section 352. Defendant contends the probative value of Whitman’s

state of mind toward defendant and their relationship, for the

purpose of showing she expressed those unfavorable feelings to

defendant on the night she was killed, was so minimal as to amount

to mere speculation, and that no reasonable juror could have drawn

that inference.

We disagree. A reasonable juror could easily infer

Whitman acted in conformity with her state of mind on the night

she died. In early December, she was happy with defendant and

their relationship, but later in December she was pessimistic as to

both; she seemed oddly hushed and uncomfortable when Meza

called her about 6:00 p.m. on December 29, suggesting perhaps she

was then involved in a tense conversation with defendant;

defendant was on the sofa, not in bed with Whitman; the coroner’s

findings convincingly proved she did not have sexual intercourse

with defendant on the night she died, contrary to defendant’s

assertions; and (to the extent defendant was to be believed) both he

and Whitman were crying on the night she died.

In his closing statement to the jury, defendant’s trial

attorney conceded that Whitman had rejected defendant, but argued

that the rejection would not have caused defendant to kill her. The

court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the evidence.

(Id. at 23- 24, 26-28 (internal citation omitted).)

As indicated by the California Court of Appeal, the challenged evidence did not

“render the trial fundamentally unfair.” White, 232 F.3d at 710. 

The findings and recommendations filed August 30, 2006, are adopted and are

augmented herein. Therefore, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondents.

Dated: September 26, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00963-GEB-CMK Document 25 Filed 09/27/06 Page 3 of 3