Bowman

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant-petitioner Jeffrey Leonard Bowman appeals the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Bowman first contests the exclusion of four pieces of evidence relating to his state of mind on the evening of the crime, arguing that he was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. “In general, it has taken ‘unusually compelling circumstances .... to outweigh the strong state interest in administration of its trials.’ ” Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 757 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Perry v. Rushen, 713 F.2d 1447, 1452 (9th Cir.1983)). In United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 , 118 S.Ct. 1261 , 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998), the Supreme Court cautioned that “[a] defendant’s right to present relevant evidence is not unlimited, but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions.” Id. at 308 , 118 S.Ct. 1261 . “Moreover, we have found the exclusion of evidence to be unconstitutionally arbitrary or disproportionate only where it has infringed upon a weighty interest of the accused.” Id.

The California Court of Appeals held that although the excluded evidence served to corroborate…