Steven Bartholomew v. Ronald Van Boening

MEMORANDUM

Steven Lee Bartholomew appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus that challenged his Washington state court convictions for kidnapping and attempted murder. A single issue has been certified for appeal: whether the Washington trial court violated Bartholomew’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation by allowing two witnesses to testify as to hearsay statements that the victim, Colleen Annyas, made soon after the alleged crime. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

The Washington Court of Appeals’ decision that Annyas’s statements were not testimonial and thus not subject to the Confrontation Clause was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d). There is no clearly established Supreme Court precedent on whether and when statements made to someone other than law enforcement personnel are testimonial. Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 1143 , 1155 n. 3, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011). Furthermore, under existing precedent, it is not unreasonable to conclude that an objective witness would not…