Keeney

MEMORANDUM ***

I. Other Crimes Evidence

Appellant David A. Keeney (“Keeney”) contends that his state conviction for sexual assault was obtained in violation of his due process rights because of the introduction of prior bad act evidence. Because his claim is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), Keeney must show that the state court’s decision affirming the introduction of the evidence was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

The Nevada Supreme Court found that the testimony regarding a similar incident of Keeney’s sexual misconduct towards a minor was properly admitted to show intent and a common scheme or plan, and that the probative value of the evidence outweighed the prejudicial effect. The admissibility of the evidence under Nevada law, however, is not subject to attack through habeas proceedings; this court can only correct Constitutional violations. Keeney contends, in essence, that despite limiting instructions to the contrary, the evidence was only useful to prove propensity to commit a…