-
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 22 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KINNEY WAYNE COMPTON, No. 09-56946 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02811-GW v. MEMORANDUM* KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 6, 2013** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY Circuit Judges. Kinney Wayne Compton appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his
28 U.S.C. § 2254habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Ybarra v. McDaniel,
656 F.3d 984, 989 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Compton contends that the trial court’s admission into evidence of the deceased victim’s out-of-court statements to police violated Compton’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. As to the crime scene and emergency room statements, the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court law in denying Compton’s claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Crawford v. Washington,
541 U.S. 36(2004), left ambiguous the scope and meaning of the terms “testimonial” and “interrogation,” and there were material differences between the circumstances in Crawford and those presented here. As to the statements made by Compton five days after the shooting, admission of those statements was harmless. See Brecht v. Abramson,
507 U.S. 619, 637-38 (1993). AFFIRMED.
Document Info
Docket Number: 09-56946
Citation Numbers: 539 F. App'x 746
Judges: Farris, Hug, Leavy
Filed Date: 8/22/2013
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 8/7/2023