Opinion ID: 674271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: admission of evidence about the victims' sexual

Text: ORIENTATION 7 Harris next objects to the exclusion of various testimony about Smith and Hamilton's sexual orientation. Harris claims that the exclusion of this testimony violated both Arizona evidentiary rules and his Sixth Amendment right to call and cross-examine witnesses. 8 The claims based on state evidentiary rules, again, do not present a federal question. This court may grant relief only if Harris's trial violated federal constitutional rights. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 475, 480 (1990); Jammal v. Van De Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 919 (9th Cir.1991). 9 Harris has not shown that the exclusion of this marginally relevant testimony violated his federal constitutional rights. While the exclusion of significant defense evidence implicates constitutional values, Perry v. Rushen, 713 F.2d 1447, 1452-53 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 838 (1984); Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, (1973); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), a defendant [asserting such a claim] must show that his interest clearly outweighs the state's before [this court] will interfere with routine procedural matters. Perry, 713 F.2d at 1453. Evidence of little importance, whether merely cumulative or of little probative value, will almost never outweigh the state interest in efficient judicial process. Id. at 1453; see also Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1987). 10 In Harris's case, the excluded witnesses would have testified that (1) Fred Smith, the kidnapping victim, was gay; (2) that Smith had a habit of picking up young men who were looking for work and making sexual overtures to them; and (3) that in making such overtures, he had previously made statements similar to those Harris described to the effect of I always get what I want. One witness would have testified that he had a 16-year relationship with Smith; two others would have testified that they worked on Smith's ranch and left after the victim made sexual overtures to them. None would have testified that Smith became violent when they rejected his advances or that he raped them or used any physical force against them. 11 The state did not dispute Smith's sexual orientation or Harris's story that Smith made sexual overtures toward him. Thus, these witnesses would not have helped Harris's self-defense claim (1) because Smith's sexual orientation is irrelevant to the question of his propensity towards violence; and (2) because even if Smith had been violent, such behavior would not have justified stuffing him into the trunk of his car and driving him to New Mexico. 12 The evidence that the manslaughter victim, Donald Hamilton, was gay is even less relevant. Harris alleged that Hamilton was killed in self-defense because Harris's codefendant killed Hamilton while Hamilton and Harris were struggling over a gun. Whatever Hamilton's autopsy may have proved about Hamilton's sexual practices had no relevance to this self-defense claim. 13 Harris's Confrontation Clause claims are without merit.