Case Name: Abacuc GUEVARA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Connie GIPSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-06
Citations: 554 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 10-55835
Parties: Abacuc GUEVARA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Connie GIPSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and COGAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 554
Pages: 617–620

Head Matter:
Abacuc GUEVARA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Connie GIPSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-55835.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 27, 2013.
Filed Feb. 6, 2014.
Abacuc Guevara, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Theodore Michael Cropley, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and COGAN, District Judge.
The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Abacuc Guevara appeals the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The California Court of Appeal upheld his convictions for murder and being a felon in possession of a gun after ruling that the erroneous admission of preliminary hearing testimony was harmless.
In determining whether the state court's error was harmless on collateral review, we examine "the record as a whole" and ask whether the violation had a "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict." Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 688, 118 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); accord Merolillo v. Yates, 663 F.3d 444, 455 (9th Cir.2011). Relevant considerations include "the importance of the testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony, the extent of cross-examination permitted, and the overall strength of the prosecution's case." Ocampo v. Vail, 649 F.3d 1098, 1114 (9th Cir.2011) (quoting Whelchel v. Washington, 232 F.3d 1197, 1206 (9th Cir.2000)). We have ruled that the erroneous admission of testimony is not rendered harmless by corroborative evidence if "(1) there was a reason for the jury to doubt the only eyewitness testimony; (2) the third party testimony was not exceptionally strong; and (3) the physical evidence connecting the accused to the crime was limited and explained by [the defendant's theory of the case]." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Whelchel, 232 F.3d at 1208).
Aside from the preliminary hearing testimony, the jury heard of three eyewitness identifications of Guevara and his motive to commit the crimes. The jury had reason to doubt each piece of evidence presented, including the preliminary hearing testimony, but the cumulative effect of multiple identifications distinguishes this case from Ocampo. In light of the testimony from other witnesses and Guevara's opportunity for cross-examination at the preliminary hearing, we conclude, consistent with Brecht, that the erroneous admission of the preliminary hearing testimony did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict.
AFFIRMED
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.