Uttecht

Smith v. Uttecht

Good Law
369 F. App'x 784
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 3, 201007-36047California171 words

Opinion

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.