22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T45c,MEMORANDUM Washington state prisoner Bruce Eric Smith appeals from the district court’s dis missal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his jury conviction for first degree rape, first degree murder, and first degree burglary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. Smith contends that his due process rights were violated when the trial court permitted the arresting officers to testify about their observations regarding Smith’s post-arrest physical condition. Specifically, Smith contends that the officers impermissibly testified about his unresponsiveness, in violation of Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 , 106 S.Ct. 634 , 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986). The record reflects that any alleged error is harmless because it did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (internal quotations omitted). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T489,

MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Bruce Eric Smith appeals from the district court’s dis missal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his jury conviction for first degree rape, first degree murder, and first degree burglary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Smith contends that his due process rights were violated when the trial court permitted the arresting officers to testify about their observations regarding Smith’s post-arrest physical condition. Specifically, Smith contends that the officers impermissibly testified about his unresponsiveness, in violation of Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 , 106 S.Ct. 634 , 88 L.Ed.2d 623 (1986). The record reflects that any alleged error is harmless because it did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (internal quotations omitted).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.