Eddie Galindo v. Eddie Ylst, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

INTRODUCTION

Eddie Galindo appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Galindo seeks relief from his California state court conviction for second degree murder. Galindo contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because of the state court’s exclusion of exculpatory hearsay evidence which he contends was admissible as a dying declaration of the victim. He also contends his fundamental right to testify in his own behalf was denied when the trial court determined that he could be impeached with a prior manslaughter conviction. After that ruling, he did not testify. We affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Galindo was found guilty of second degree murder in connection with the death of his wife. Galindo and his wife were arguing. Galindo went to a bedroom closet, removed a sawed-off shotgun, loaded it, and then poked it into his wife’s stomach. 1 The gun fired; Galindo claims he did not pull the trigger and that the gun went off accidentally. He later admitted to police that he knew the gun malfunctioned. His claim throughout his state appeals and this proceeding is that he did not know the gun could malfunction in the way that it did when his wife was…

dissenting:

There is no doubt that Eddie Galindo committed a crime. He loaded a shotgun and poked it into his wife’s stomach. The shotgun discharged, and Mrs. Galindo died as a result. Had Galindo been convicted of involuntary manslaughter, the constitutional errors that occurred during his trial likely would be harmless because the undisputed evidence that he committed that offense is overwhelming. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824, 828 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

However, Galindo was not convicted of involuntary manslaughter. He was convicted of murder, a far more serious offense. The ' evidence to support that *1430 charge is exceptionally slim. It is undisputed that Galindo did not intend to kill his wife: the prosecution itself introduced evidence that he did not even place his finger on the gun’s trigger. The state claimed only that because Galindo knew, before he poked the gun into his wife’s stomach, that it had “misfired” in the past, his action demonstrated “wanton disregard for human life” sufficient upon which to base a conviction for murder. With regard to that contention, the jury heard a police officer testify that, shortly after Galindo shot…

971 F.2d 1427 36 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 359 Eddie GALINDO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eddie YLST, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 90-56131. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 16, 1992. Decided Aug. 5, 1992. Gail Ivens, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner-appellant. Carol Pollack and Donald F. Roeschke, Deputy Attys. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before: REINHARDT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges; and CROCKER, District Judge. * PER CURIAM: INTRODUCTION 1 Eddie Galindo appeals the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Galindo seeks relief from his California state court conviction for second degree murder. Galindo contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because of the state court's exclusion of exculpatory hearsay evidence which he contends was admissible as a dying declaration of the victim. He also contends his fundamental right to testify in his own behalf was denied when the trial court determined that he could be impeached with a prior manslaughter conviction.…