Matthew Jennings v. D. Runnels

MEMORANDUM

Matthew Jennings appeals the district court’s partial denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, which challenged his conviction and sentence of life without parole for aiding and abetting first-degree murder and for the special circumstances of felony murder and lying-in-wait. We review the district court’s decision de novo, Runningeagle v. Ryan, 686 F.3d 758, 766 (9th Cir.2012), and affirm.

1. Jennings contends that the introduction at his trial of certain portions of his non-testifying accomplices’ confessions violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and was prejudicial error. This case predates Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), so Jennings’s Confrontation Clause claims are governed by Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), and Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999). We need not decide whether the challenged statements were admissible under Roberts and Lilly . Even if their introduction was constitutional error, it was harmless.

Erroneous admission of out-of-court statements by a non-testifying declarant is a trial-type error, Padilla v.…