Opinion ID: 612017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Alleged State Law Errors

Text: 18 Wilkinson challenges the following evidentiary rulings by the state trial court: 19 (1) admission of evidence of other bad acts, i.e. his arrest outside the Aboud residence four months prior to the crimes charged and the window-breaking incident at a nearby apartment complex the night of the crimes charged; 20 (2) admission of a hospital emergency room report stating that Pt. reported to have cut R thumb on glass, and admission of Officer Harris's testimony regarding his comparison of Wilkinson's shoe with the footprint outside Aboud's bedroom window; 21 (3) grant of state's motion in limine precluding Wilkinson from calling Officer Turner as a witness for the purpose of impeaching his credibility; 22 (4) denial of Wilkinson's motion for a jury view of the crime scene; 23 (5) prosecutor's alleged comment during rebuttal argument implying that trial would be bifurcated and Wilkinson's sanity would be determined in later proceedings. 24 In addition, Wilkinson argues that the trial court erred by giving a rape instruction because the evidence was insufficient to support such an instruction. 25 Evidentiary rulings and jury instructions are generally questions of state law, which are not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings. Estelle v. McGuire, 112 S.Ct. at 480 (it is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state court determinations on state law questions); Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 919 (9th Cir.1991) (this court is not a state supreme court of errors; [it does] not review questions of state evidence law). Nevertheless, Wilkinson asserts that the trial court's rulings violated his rights to due process and a fair trial. We disagree. Having reviewed the state court records, we conclude that none of the alleged violations of state law amounts to a deprivation of due process. Accordingly, these claims are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition. See id. 26