Boyer v. Chappell, No. 13-99006 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of two murders, appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition. The court concluded that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent when it determined that federal law did not require a live evidentiary hearing to assess the reliability of a witness’s testimony; fair minded jurists could disagree on the correctness of the state court's decision that the evidence that petitioner committed the murder was sufficient; it was not unreasonable for the California Supreme Court to conclude that petitioner’s counsel conducted a thorough investigation into his mental state and that such investigation satisfied the performance prong of Strickland v. Washington; petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice on his Strickland claim; petitioner failed to demonstrate that counsel’s alleged deficient performance in failing to investigate adequately the possibility of organic brain damage prejudiced him at the penalty phase; and the court rejected petitioner's claims regarding California's death penalty procedures. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. The court declined to certify two claims. The court certified three previously-uncertified claims and held that petitioner is not entitled to relief.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus/Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Richard Delmer Boyer’s habeas corpus petition challenging his two first degree murder convictions and death sentence. The panel held that the state court did not unreasonably apply clearly established Supreme Court precedent when it determined that federal law did not require the trial court to conduct a live evidentiary hearing to assess the reliability of testimony that the prosecution introduced at the penalty phase in order to prove that Boyer had committed a prior murder. Regarding Boyer’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge to the prior murder, in connection with which Boyer pointed to problems with the eyewitness identification, the panel held that fairminded jurists could disagree on the correctness of the state court’s decision that the evidence that Boyer committed the murder was sufficient. Regarding Boyer’s claim that trial counsel deficiently failed to investigate the possibility that Boyer suffered from organic brain damage at the guilt phase of the trial, the panel held that it was not unreasonable for the state court to conclude that Boyer’s counsel conducted a thorough investigation into his mental state and that such investigation satisfied the performance prong of Strickland v. Washington. The panel also held that Boyer failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice. The panel held that the district court did BOYER V. CHAPPELL 3 not err when it denied for largely the same reasons Boyer’s claim that trial counsel deficiently failed to investigate the possibility that he suffered from organic brain damage at the penalty phase. The panel rejected as foreclosed by precedent Boyer’s contentions that the California death penalty is unconstitutional by virtue of (1) the statutory scheme’s failure to narrow adequately the class of eligible defendants and (2) prosecutorial discretion. The panel declined to certify two claims relating to the admission of testimony given pursuant to an agreement that the testimony would be consistent with prior statements to the police. Certifying three previously-uncertified claims, the panel held that Boyer is not entitled to relief on his contentions that the trial court erred when it sua sponte failed to instruct the jury that unconsciousness is a complete defense and failed to define unconsciousness, and that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for failure to request such instructions. 4 BOYER V. CHAPPELL
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.