Unpublished Disposition, 872 F.2d 428 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 872 F.2d 428 (9th Cir. 1989)

William Wade JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant,v.John K. VAN DE KAMP, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 87-2596.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted*  Jan. 9, 1989.Decided March 13, 1989.

Before WILLIAM A. NORRIS, NOONAN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


William Wade Jackson, a California state parolee, appeals the district court's summary denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Jackson contends that his right to voir dire was denied because the state court, after voir dire had been completed, reversed its previous order excluding evidence of Jackson's drug use. The California Court of Appeals upheld Jackson's conviction on the ground of invited error; the district court denied the habeas corpus petition on the same ground. Reviewing de novo, Weygandt v. Ducharme, 774 F.2d 1491, 1492 (9th Cir. 1985), we affirm on the ground that the state court made no errors of any kind.

Jackson was convicted in the San Francisco County Superior Court of receiving stolen property. At trial, Jackson's counsel moved to exclude evidence relating to Jackson's possible drug-related motive for committing the crime, arguing that such evidence was collateral to the issues to be presented to the jury. The state court granted the motion and ordered the evidence excluded. Counsel's subsequent presentation of an innocent intent defense, however, put Jackson's motive directly at issue and made the excluded drug related evidence highly relevant. Consequently, the state court was correct in reversing its earlier exclusion order. Under these circumstances, there can be no merit to Jackson's argument that he was deprived of his right to question the jury during voir dire on the issue of drug use.



The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4


This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3