Murdaugh

Murdaugh v. Roe

Good Law
33 F. App'x 340
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 17, 2002No. 01-55274; D.C. No. CV-96-08234-WJRCalifornia324 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Donald Edward Murdaugh appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, challenging his state conviction for first-degree residential burglary and first-degree residential robbery in violation of California Penal Code §§ 211 and 459. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Murdaugh contends that his constitutional rights were violated when the district court permitted the readback of wit *341 ness testimony during jury deliberation outside of his presence on June 20, 1988. We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Alvarado v. Hill, 252 F.3d 1066, 1068 (9th Cir.2001).

As both parties concede, the Supreme Court has never articulated a right to be present at the readback of witness testimony during jury deliberations. See La Crosse v. Kernan, 244 F.3d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that a criminal defendant’s absence from the readback of testimony does not warrant habeas relief, due to divergence in opinion whether or not it is a critical stage of the trial and the lack of clear guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject). Accordingly,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.