Jeff Hawkins v. R. Horal

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Jeff Hawkins appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

First, Hawkins argues that Moore v. Duckworth, 443 U.S. 713, 713-14 , 99 S.Ct. 3088 , 61 L.Ed.2d 865 (1979) (per curiam), recognized a federal due process right in having sufficient evidence to support a sanity verdict. However, under the applicable state law in Moore , once the defendant raised the issue of insanity, sanity became an element of the crime that the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. See Price v. State, 274 Ind. 479 , 412 N.E.2d 783, 784-85 (1980). As the State points out, in California, Hawkins had the burden of proving insanity. See People v. Hernandez, 22 Cal.4th 512, 521-22 , 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 , 994 P.2d 354 (Cal.2000) (The sanity phase of trial “differs procedurally from the guilt phase of trial in that the issue is confined to sanity and the burden is upon the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the offense.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Hawkins has not identified any case where the Supreme Court addressed challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence regarding sanity when a…