T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H on orabl e D avi d D . D ow d, Jr . , S eni or U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ct ** * J udge f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof O hi o, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DWI GH T KR I Z MAN, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. B OB HO R E L , WAR DE N, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 56016 D. C . No . 2 : 0 6 - C V- 0 5 0 6 4 - OD W ( P L A) ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O t i s D . W r i ght , I I , U ni t e d S t a t e D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d J une 7, 2010 ** P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: N E L S O N and G O U L D , C i rc ui tJudg es , and D O W D , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. *** 

# FI LED JU N 25 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

D w i ghtK r i z m a n ( “ P e t i t i one r ” ) appe a l s the de ni a l of hi s pe t i t i on f

oraw r i tof h ab e a s c o rp u s r e la tin g to h is C a lif o rn ias ta te c o n v ic tio n f

o rth e m u r d e ro f

h is w if e . T he st at e tri al i ncl ud ed t es t i m on y f rom a tre at i ng do ct or and n urse di sc l osi ng that s hor t l y pr i ort o he rde a th, the P e t i t i one r ’ s w i f e r e por t e d ha vi ng be e n the vi c t i m of dom e s t i c abus e by he rhus ba nd. T he s ol e i s s ue a dva nc e d by the P e t i t i one ri s the c l a i m tha tthe t e s t i m ony of the doc t ora nd nur s e r e l a t i ng t o hi s w i f e ’ s i nc ul pa t ory s t a t e m e nt s r e ga r di ng pr i or do m es t i c abu se vi ol at ed the t ea chi ng s of Cr a w fo rd v . W a s h in g to n , 541 U . S . 36 (200 4). T he ph ys i ca l al t er ca t i on thatl ed t o the P et i t i on er ’ s w i fe ’ s dea th o cc urre d at the c oupl e ’ s r e s i de nc e on N ove m be r22, 2002. O n D e c e m be r17, 2002, the P e t i t i one r ’ s w i f

e di e d of c om pl i c a t i ons r e l a t e d t o the i nj ur i e s s he s us t a i ne d on N ove m be r22, 2002. T he P e t i t i one rw a s c onvi c t e d f ol l ow i ng aj ury tr i a l of

the of f e ns e of s e c ond degree mu rderand sent ence d t o a t erm of 15 ye ar s t o l i fe for the m urder c onvi c t i on. T he C a l i f

orni aC our tof

A ppe a l s a f

f i rm e d the P e t i t i one r ’ s c onvi c t i on in a n u n p u b lis h e d o p in io n a n d th e P e titio n e r ’s p e titio n f o rr e v ie w b y th e C a lif

o rn ia S up re m e C ou rtw as deni ed. T he pet i t i on for aw ri tof habeas corpus fi l ed i n U ni t ed3

S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC our tf

orthe C e ntr a l D i s tr i c tof C a l i f orni aw a s de ni e d on J une 10, 2008. T he s ol e que s t i on be f or e thi s C our ti s w he the rthe t e s t i m ony by the tr e a t i ng d o ct o r an d n u rse rep o rt i n g cl ai m s o f d o m est i c v i o l en ce b y th e P et i t i o n er’ s sp o u se vi ol at ed the t ea chi ng s of Cr aw f ord v . W as hi ngton a nd the s ubs e que nt pr onounc e m e nt s i n D av is v . W as hi ngton , 54 7 U . S . 81 3 (20 06 ). T h e n arro w i ssu e i s w h eth er th e st at em en t s b y th e treat i n g d o ct o r an d n u rse a r e “n o n - te s tim o n ia l” o r“te s tim o n ia l.” I n a f f irm in g th e P e titio n e r ’s c o n v ic tio n , th e C a lif o rn iaC o u r t o f

A p p e a ls de c l a r e d: H er e, M rs . K ri zm an’ s hea rs aydecl ar at i on s w er e not

m ade und erci rc um st ance s w hi ch w ou l d l ea d an “ obj e c t i ve w i tne s s r e a s onabl y t o be l i e ve tha tthe st at em ent ” w ou l d b e a vai l abl e f or use duri ng a tri al ( Cr aw f or d v . W as hi ngton, s upr a, 54 1 U . S . atp. 52 . ) R a the r , the y w e r e m a de i n r e s pons e t o the que s t i ons of m e di c a l pe r s onne l f

orpurpos e s of

di a gnos i s a nd tre atm ent . T he st at em ent s w er e properl y a dm i tt ed pur s ua ntt o E vi de nc e C ode s e c t i on 1370 a nd di d not v io la te th e C o n f

r o n ta tio n C la u s e ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T h e i ssu e o f th e ad m i ssi b i l i ty o f h earsay d ecl arat i o n s b y d o m est i c ab u se vi c t i m s i n ahabe a s s e tt i ng w a s s ubs e que nt l y a ddr e s s e d by thi s C i r c ui ti n Mo ses v .4

P ay ne , 555 F . 3d 742 ( 9 C i r . 2009) i n the c ont e xtof habe a s r e vi e w gove rne d by th the A nt i t e rr or i s m a nd E f f e c t i ve D e a th P e na l ty A c tof 1996. T he P ayne pa ne l c onc l ude d tha tthe m ur de rvi c t i m ’ s s t a t e m e nt s t o he rdoc t or re po rt i ng do m es t i c abu se by her husband “ w er e non -t es t i m on i al because they w er e m a d e f o rp u rp o s e s o f

d ia g n o s is a n d tr e a tm e n t, r a th e rth a n to in c u lp a te M o s e s ... [ a nd] nota n unr e a s onabl e appl i c a t i on of the l e ga l pr i nc i pl e e s t abl i s he d by Cra w f o rd .” W e hol d tha tthe r e l e va ntrul i ng i n Mos e s v . P ay ne i s c ontr ol l i ng. T he j u d g m e n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I R ME D.