Thompson

MEMORANDUM *

Richard Thompson appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as corpus petition, in which he alleged that the state trial court’s evidentiary errors violated his constitutional right to due process, confrontation, and a fair trial. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary to explain our decision.

*34 I

Thompson challenges three evidentiary rulings made by the state trial court. Although there is the issue of procedural bar potentially foreclosing his claims, we nevertheless reach the merits of Thompson’s petition.

A

The trial court excluded evidence of the rape victim’s prior physical abuse at the hands of her boyfriend. On direct appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that while it was error to exclude the evidence, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming amount of “damning” physical evidence that linked Thompson to the crime and Thompson’s inability to rebut it. State v. Thompson, 131 Or.App. 230 , 884 P.2d 574, 580 (Or.Ct.App.1994). Furthermore, at trial Thompson was allowed to present his theory that the victim fabricated the rape to conceal her consensual sexual encounter with…