Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00124/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-00124-2/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

27

28

- 1 - 08CV0124

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD HILL,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 08-CV-0124 (JM)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

vs. AND RECOMMENDATION

JAMES TILTON, Warden, et al.

Respondent.

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed his first amended § 2254 habeas petition on February 22,

2007. (Doc. no. 4.) He challenges his conviction in San Diego Superior court for selling cocaine

base, possession of cocaine base for sale, and possession of narcotics paraphernalia. Respondent filed

an answer to the petition on April 24, 2008. Petitioner filed a traverse on July 9, 2008. On July 23,

2008, Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

recommending that the court deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus with prejudice. (Doc. no. 11.)

Petitioner filed objections to the R&R on August 29, 2008. 

Having carefully considered the R&R, the record before the court, and the applicable

authorities, the court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety. Petitioner has failed to establish that the

failure of the trial court to give instruction on the entrapment defense was so prejudicial as to preclude

a fair trial on the issues, and he has not shown a reasonable probability that the result of the

proceeding would have been different if the instruction had been given. The police can take reasonable

Case 3:08-cv-00124-JM-CAB Document 12 Filed 10/03/08 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

- 2 - 08CV0124

steps to gain the confidences of the suspect, as long as such conduct is not overbearing on the suspect.

People v. Barraza, 23 Cal.3d 675, 690. Petitioner did not show that he was induced into the

commission of the crime by “overbearing conduct such as badgering, cajoling, importuning, or other

affirmative acts likely to induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime.” Id.

Furthermore, petitioner’s Confrontation Right was not violated since Petitioner already had the

opportunity to cross examine the adverse witness. The issue of whether the officer was wearing a oneway or two-way wire was collateral, and this line of questioning would not have changed the outcome

of the trial, since there was sufficient evidence to show that the Petitioner committed the crime in

question. Accordingly, the court DENIES with prejudice the petition for writ of habeas corpus, under

28 U.S.C. §§ 2254. The Clerk is ordered to enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 3, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00124-JM-CAB Document 12 Filed 10/03/08 Page 2 of 2