Peterson

MEMORANDUM *

The California Court of Appeal decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). A reasonable juror could infer, from the fact that Peterson shot the deputy dead and the evidence that Peterson could see out the window from which he fired his weapon, that Peterson meant to kill the officer and conclude that the evidence of Peterson’s mental and emotional deficiencies was insufficient to negate that inference.

Assuming Peterson raised a question of federal constitutional law, he has not demonstrated that the state court instructions, with respect to whether he knew or should have known that the victim was a peace officer engaged in his duties, failed to ade *660 quately instruct the jury about his mental impairments and defects because the jury was generally instructed how to analyze evidence of Peterson’s impairments. The instructions are not contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal constitutional law as stated in the holdings of the Supreme Court, as required for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 72 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116…