Unpublished Disposition, 905 F.2d 1541 (9th Cir. 1990)
Annotate this CaseJames Lee STEELE, Petitioner-Appellant,v.Manfred MAASS, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 89-35776.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 8, 1990.* Decided June 22, 1990.
Before SCHROEDER, NORRIS, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
James Lee Steele appeals the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1982). We review de novo and affirm.
We reject Steele's argument that insufficient evidence existed to convict him of attempted rape and other crimes. The testimony of the victim was sufficient for a rational jury to find Steele guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Furthermore, the trial court's admission of testimony which referred to certain physical objects that the prosecution did not introduce into evidence was proper and did not violate Steele's constitutional rights. The introduction of physical objects into evidence is not a prerequisite to the introduction of testimony which refers to those objects. See generally C. McCormick, Evidence Sec. 212 (3d Ed.1984).
Steele's argument that he was improperly and unconstitutionally forced to introduce his victim's robe and nightgown into evidence because the victim mentioned those items in her testimony is frivolous.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
