Opinion ID: 800891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limit on Collateral Impeachment

Text: [10] The trial judge did preclude cross-examination of one particular topic—R.H.’s out-of-court allegations about his foster father’s threat to his foster mother and about the truth of that accusation. The trial judge reasoned that injecting the topic would confuse the issues and consume undue time. In addition, the judge observed that, even if R.H. were impeached, the benefit to Petitioner would be only marginal because of other significant areas of impeachment. [11] The trial judge acted within his discretion, citing con- cerns repeatedly recognized as valid by the Supreme Court. See Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 679 (recognizing concerns such as “confusion of the issues . . . or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant”). Petitioner cites no Supreme Court opinion recognizing a right to impeachment via extrinsic evidence relating to the truth of a collateral out-of-court statement.11 “When there is no clearly established federal law on an issue, a state court cannot be said to have unreasonably 11 The relevant Supreme Court cases are more concerned with a witness’ motive to lie. For example, Olden involved an attempt to cross-examine a witness as to whether or not she was involved in a relationship with and living with a man, after she had testified during direct examination that she was living with her mother; the fact of her cohabitation was relevant in that it suggested a motive to lie. 488 U.S. at 230. In Van Arsdall, the excluded topic of cross-examination concerned whether the prosecution had agreed to drop certain charges against a witness in exchange for his promise to discuss the murder in which the defendant was charged. 475 U.S. at 676. Similarly, Davis involved cross-examination relating to a witness’ probationary status, intended to show that he might have testified due to undue pressure from police or fear of probation revocation. 415 U.S. at 311. None of these cases involved cross-examination about the truth or falsity of an out-of-court statement relating to a collateral matter. 5718 FENENBOCK v. DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS applied the law as to that issue.” Holley, 568 F.3d at 1098. Thus, under the usual AEDPA standard of review, this claim fails.12 AFFIRMED. 12 No deference is due to the last reasoned state court opinion because it failed to address the constitutional question, resolving the claim only on state evidentiary grounds. See Lewis v. Mayle, 391 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2004) (“De novo review, rather than AEDPA’s deferential standard, is applicable to a claim that the state court did not reach on the merits.”). Later, though, the state supreme court implicitly ruled on the constitutional claim, albeit without explanation, when it decided Petitioner’s habeas claims. We owe AEDPA deference because we presume that the more recent decision implicitly adjudicated all of Petitioner’s claims, including his constitutional claim. See Richter, 131 S. Ct. at 784.