Terhune

MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Gregory Smith appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his 1998 jury conviction for murder and attempted murder. Smith argues that the state trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense when it excluded his third party culpability evidence. Smith also argues that the state trial court misapplied provisions of the California Evidence Code when excluding evidence that his alleged victim was also the victim of two other shootings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

We can only grant habeas relief where the state court’s decision 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); see also Clark v. Murphy, 331 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2003). Although the Supreme court recognizes the right to present a complete defense, that right is restricted “to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 298 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). The…