Darryl Farris v. Stuart Ryan , 396 F. App'x 358 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              SEP 21 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DARRYL WAYNE FARRIS,                             No. 09-15835
    Petitioner - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:04-cv-00989-LKK-
    EFB
    v.
    STUART RYAN, Acting Warden,                      MEMORANDUM *
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted August 30, 2010
    San Francisco, California
    Before: B. FLETCHER, TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Appellant Darryl Wayne Farris (Farris) challenges the district court’s denial
    of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Farris contends that the exclusion of
    evidence of prostitution pursuant to California’s Rape Shield Law violated his
    rights under the Confrontation Clause.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    Because Farris’s habeas petition was filed after 1996, his claim is governed
    by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). See
    Howard v. Clark, 
    608 F.3d 563
    , 567 (9th Cir. 2010). Under the AEDPA, Farris’s
    petition can only be granted if the state court’s “adjudication of the claim resulted
    in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,
    clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
    States.” 
    Id. (citations and
    alteration omitted).
    The California Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court, pursuant to
    California’s Rape Shield Law, properly excluded a victim’s prior conviction for
    prostitution and her “price list”. This conclusion was not contrary to Michigan v.
    Lucas, 
    500 U.S. 145
    , 152-53 (1991), in which the Supreme Court held that a
    defendant does not have an unconditional constitutional right to introduce evidence
    of a prior sexual relationship with the victim, and the legitimate interests served by
    state rape shield statutes could justify excluding such evidence.
    Consistent with Lucas, the trial court balanced the probative value of the
    evidence against its prejudicial nature. See 
    id. at 153
    (remanding for consideration
    of whether the defendant’s right to confrontation was violated “on the facts”).
    Indeed, Farris was allowed to ask all three victims whether they were engaged in
    2
    prostitution on the nights in question. He also identified one location as a “stroll
    area” for prostitutes.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-15835

Citation Numbers: 396 F. App'x 358

Judges: Fletcher, Tallman, Rawlinson

Filed Date: 9/21/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024