Matthew King v. E.K. McDaniel
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Matthew James King appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.
I
The district court correctly determined that any error under state law in admitting Detective Sherwood’s statements on the cause of Hatsady’s injuries did not rise to the level of a due process violation. To violate due process, wrongly admitted evidence must be “so extremely unfair that its admission violates fundamental conceptions of justice.” Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 , 110 S.Ct. 668 , 107 L.Ed.2d 708 (1990) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, any error was harmless, as defense counsel mitigated the effect of Sherwood’s testimony by securing an admission on cross-examination that Hatsady’s injuries were also consistent with having allergies, wearing contacts, and drinking alcohol. In addition, medical record evidence submitted to the jury included a notation from Hatsa-dy’s treating physician Stephen Mussehl indicating that she suffered “acute ... [ajsphyxiation.”